Talk:Mother!

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (this is an upcoming major film release.. i dont think it qualifies for speedy) --Spanneraol (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Only use of !

(cur | prev) 19:30, 7 February 2017‎ Flax5 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38 bytes) (+38)‎ . . (Flax5 moved page Mother (2017 film) to Mother!: the exclamation mark appears to be part of the title, per the last announcement. There's no other article called "Mother!" so no need for disambiguation.) (thank)

We'll have to see if the ! forms part of title in running text in reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Shaggy God Story

I feel like this should be linked to Shaggy God story. Thoughts? 98.102.79.214 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That term seems to be more about science fiction, but I don't think this film is science fiction. This film seems more like a regular allegorical story. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

synopsis

The man does NOT claim at any point in the story to be god. This is pure intrepretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E851:DD60:455A:52D0:C66D:995E (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Critics

I'm not sure it is a good idea to include the film review from The Economist as their columns are written under pseudonyms. (The books and arts section is written under the pseudonym Propsero.) Also I'm not convinced the comment taken from the review offers any great insight. There are so many other critics that could easily be used it seems as if it would be better to avoid using The Economist. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Icarus of old (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A really remarkable number of audience reviews were negative on RottenTomatoes. 42% average, but a large number labeled it the worst movie they've ever seen. Seems like we should note that; it's not just that not everyone liked it.MikeR613 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes does nothing to verify user votes. There is no way of knowing if people voting have even seen the film or not. User voted web polls are notoriously unreliable which is why the Wikipedia film guidelines consistently recommend against them.

Cinemascore (and other like Rentrak) actually directly survey audiences in cinemas, and provide useful verifiable information. Occasionally audience trends become prominent enough that third party reviewers comment on them, ideally a few of them, in which case you can include it but user voted web polls are unreliable unverifiable junk and will be quickly removed.

I don't have any problem with including reviews from The Economist in general, but I wouldn't give it any priority. In this case the commentary didn't seem to offer any particular insight and many other good sources are also available. I don't mind including reviews from most sources so long as the review has a particularly interesting insight into some aspect of the film. Often the very negative reviews give the best comments about the things in the film they actually like, praising details such as the score or cinematography, whereas reviewers who actually enjoy the film rarely mention such details.

TLDR. Econmist okay. User voted web polls bad. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

'The Economist opined: "Mother! should open up new territory for creative cinema, especially if it proves to be a box-office hit."

Thinking about it further what really bothers me about this comment is how vague it is, using both the words "should" and "if". I'm not happy with including this speculation as part of the critical response. If it later turns out that the film turns out to be a box office hit (and it isn't looking like it so far) that commentary might be worth mentioning as part of the box office section but I don't feel it a comment particularly worth including at this time. -- 109.79.168.17 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Lowercase title

Should this article (and this Talk page) not use Template:lowercase title? I tried to add it but it didn't work. Does the page need to be moved to mother!? — Hugh 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For technical reasons the title of the article in Wikipedia's system cannot be lowercase, however I've gone ahead and changed it to display as lowercase with this revision. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) talk to me! 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't mimic stylization in film titles. Look at Seven (1995 film), I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, etc. Nardog (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand not following the stylization but I think you've gone to far by not even mentioning that there is any stylization and urge your to restore {{efn|The film's teaser poster as well as its theatrical [[One sheet|one-sheet]] stylize the title with a lowercase "m." to the lead. -- 109.76.225.230 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

Change: She starts seeing things around the house that unsettle her, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.

Into: She starts seeing things around the house, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.

(Because the heart of the house is not unsettling to her, it's comforting...until it starts to die.) 65.153.180.10 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: The entire "Plot summary" section was over-long, overly-detailed, and confusingly-written due to the fact that the film's main characters have no names. I trimmed it to its essentials and cited two WP:RS for the contention that the usual recital of plot events is not essential. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

Second paragraph: "The film received generally positive reviews..." Shouldn't this read as "negative reviews" since even later in the article it reads as having "poor reviews"? 12.237.19.79 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No. It has a score of 74/100 on Metacritic, which is very good. The word "poor" is used in regard to the CinemaScore. — Film Fan 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The existence of negative reviews does not mean that the general trend is not positive. The cited Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes ratings support the statement of "generally positive". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

Under CRITICAL RESPONSE the following quote feels eroneous. Filmink is a minor Australian-based film website.

Travis Johnson of Filmink gave the film 19 out of 20, calling it a "dense, delirious, playful and serious work of capital A art, and easily the most ambitious film to come out of a major studio since Kubrick died". Motherman (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The quote is, by definition, not erroneous if it appears in the source cites, as this does. Whether the location of the site or the importance justify this clearly-identified opinion is for the reader to decide. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Critical response issue

Firstly, as you know, we don't seperate critical reception section into two different sections. But, one user insists to do that. There is no need to divide, so I suggest it should stay as "critical response/reception". Plus, I think the summary of the film in the lead section looks so redundantly written, and there is not much a formal combination between sentences. (The mysterious couple arrives and disrupts their tranquil existence, then they have a memorial about the death?!) Sebastian James (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess you must have been talking about the edit where some tried to divide the critical response into positive and negative subsections, which didn't take very long for others to revert.

There are occasional good reasons to subdivide the section but not many. Sometimes a film receives notable criticism from other film makers or authors. Some articles have an Audience response subsection but only when there are enough reliable sources, but usually Cinemascore and ocassionally Rentrak are all we've got (but user voted web polls are definitely not).

I have seen articles with large critical response section subdivided because the section need to cover local reviewers as well as international reviewers, but trying to create subheadings to split the positive and negative reviews (a line/paragraph break should be enough) is a fairly weird choice and not something I've seen before. It is not or something that falls within what WP:MOSFILM recommends, and goes in the wrong direction for what good film articles aim for. Despite how Rotten Tomatoes works most film reviewers aren't a binary positive or negative and most reviewers try to find at least one good thing to praise (or bad thing eviscerate) in any film, so even a negative review can offer useful criticism of details such as direction, writing, score, or cinematography. -- 109.77.170.174 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers in synopsis

As another user noticed, the summarised plot at the beginning of the article contains spoilers, but its edition got reverted. Why should we keep it? --200.4.25.142 (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see the policy on spoilers. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

I didn't know whether to include this under the last section or to start a new section since it's a slightly different focus. The lead for this article states too much of the plot information, and while, a couple editors have argued back and forth about whether or not to delete it based upon WP:Spoilers merits, the main problem is that it just covers too much. There is no reason that multiple plot beats should be covered in this section. WP:Spoilers I feel have also, in this discussion been misinterpreted, The primary goal of the policy is so that editors can freely talk about elements of the plot when necessary. Per the guideline itself ". When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."

My other main problem with the section is that, in researching the issue I found that our plot description in the lead appears, in part includes word for word of the original synopsis released by Paramount, given without any sort of attribution. I suggest we delete it and create our own. --Deathawk (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to how some people choose to interpret it, nowhere does it state in WP:SPOILERS that spoilers must be placed anywhere and everywhere possible. It states that information should not be deleted from an article because it is a spoiler. If there is a proper plot summary in the article that is being left intact, then nothing is being omitted from the article if spoilers are being deleted from other places. It's all about where the spoilers actually _belong_.

If there is no specific WP:FILM guideline on this, then maybe we should look at featured articles for contemporary films. Is it customary to spoil the whole movie in the lead? Let's see some precedent. --SubSeven (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers in lead

This is getting rather frustrating. Per WP:SPOILERS, no spoilers should be removed. It is not a valid reason to remove such content because you don't like it and think it spoils the summary. Please stop removing this content and take your concerns here instead. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 05:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this above, someone else agreed with me and then they removed it. To summarize: The issue isn't necessarily a spoiler per say, it's just that it is inappropriate for a film lead section. --Deathawk (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's a very short summary of the summary itself and therefore a spoiler. Removing it is against WP:SPOILERS. My main concern is that users remove it because it's a spoiler. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Who's to say it's inappropariate? It's a summary of the summary, which obviously belongs in the lead. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 12:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if not in the lead, the information is still very much in the article. Not a violation of WP:SPOILERS. Please see my message in the section above this one. --SubSeven (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:SPOILER. You are removing a short summary of the plot summary because it spoils the movie. There is no valid reason to remove it. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Who knows. --SubSeven (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have eyes and a brain. Maybe you just can't read what I said. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Callmemirela. It is appropriate that a short summary of the plot be included in the lede and I see no legitimate reason for its removal. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is putting a spoiler in the lead serving though? It's not serving someone who wants to see the film, because it spoiled it for them. It's not serving anyone who has seen the film, because they would already know the information. It's not even really serving people who want to know what happens because we have the plot synopsis for that. We are clinging here to wording in WP:Spoiler, but ignoring the context. Per the policy: . "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served", it is clearly not serving such a purpose by being in the lead. --Deathawk (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A basic plot summary will generally spoil the plot if it summarizes the plot. If you don't want know what happens in a story (film, novel, historical account, religious text, opera, TV series, etc.), it's very bad idea to read an encyclopedia article about it. That should be common sense.

The suggestions being put forth are various approaches to one goal: removing a spoiler because it is a spoiler. "Remove it from the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler. "Prove that it must be in the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler. "Do Featured Articles always have spoilers in the lead" is removing a spoiler from the lead because it is a spoiler, unless a heterogeneous selection of articles describing wildly different plots all include a particular element.

Yes, the summary should not go out of its way to spoil the ending. At the same time, it shouldn't go out of its way to avoid spoiling the ending (or other plot points), as being requested here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Most film articles do not provide a plot summary per say, in the lead, but rather a basic premise, this is where the blowback is coming from. At some point, yes it's true we're removing a spoiler, but not simply because it's a spoiler, but because it has no encyclopedic value. --Deathawk (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If someone dropped a plot summary in the production section, or the external link section, would that get WP:SPOILER pushback if people tried to remove that too? This is no different. It's something that doesn't belong there. I sampled 20 featured film articles and none of them spoil the plot in the lead; as Deathawk says, it is customary to give the premise and stop there. The style guide at WP:FILMLEAD also suggests a premise in the lead. Still waiting for the reason that this article should be different. --SubSeven (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you sampled your films, I looked at the first films listed at [[]]. The very first film listed there is 300. How did the central battle turn out? "The events are revealed to be a story told by Dilios, the only one of the 300 Spartans to survive the battle." Next up is ? (film): "After undergoing numerous hardships and the deaths of several family members in religious violence, they are reconciled."

If you don't see a difference between discussing the plot in the lead and discussing the plot in the external link section, I can't help you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I sampled by going to the category and randomly clicking around, favoring movies I was at least somewhat familiar with. Looking back on the list, I can say among the ones I remember looking at were Casino Royale (2006 film),The Fifth Element,Fight Club,Mulholland Drive (film),Manhunter (film),Jaws (film),Sense and Sensibility (film),Pride & Prejudice (2005 film), The Mummy (1999 film). The pattern of how the lead is handled in all of those is pretty clear, and it is very much in line with what WP:FILMLEAD suggests. Even in the examples you give, I don't feel they are breaking down the plot in the same way that is happening in this article. --SubSeven (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Looking a GA articles and then looking at this article is kinda deceptive because, by nature of it being a good article, elements in the lead have been carefully scrutinized, while I don't think there's ever been arguments about the content here regardless of "It's a spoiler". I also feel that the majority of edits surrounding this have been reactionary and no one has actually taken time to determine, if it's a good edit on it's own merit. --Deathawk (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The main issue that everyone's focused on seems to be "Spoilers" but again that's not the problem, the problem is that it seems to give an inappropriate large weight to what happens in the movie in the lead. To take the 300 example, the fact that Dillos is the only survivor is relevant because he is the one telling the story. If you read the surrounding text it's actually rather limited in what other plot details are revealed. --Deathawk (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

Someone spoils the whole movie in the first section of the article. Please rectify this. It spoils the film for all who have seen it and destroys Aronofsky's mission. 76.78.72.166 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: To remove that section because it spoils the plot is a violation of WP:SPOILERS. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We are actually in the process of discussing this above. So if you have concerns I would address them there. --Deathawk (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

Please remove the description of the film's plot from the first section of this page. Place it below in the synopsis but please anywhere but the top of the page. This synopsis is a complete and utter spoiler of the film and it is a true disgrace to Darren Aronofsky's film and the film community that a film built so much upon mystery should be ruined for those who might not want to know what happens. So please, I beg of you. Alter this immediately. 76.78.72.166 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Didn't you already ask this question yesterday? And didn't the answerer ask you to join the discussion above? There is a thread on this topic. Discuss there. Crboyer (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem with lead

I brought this up already but it was as part of a larger discussion but are leads seem to use text very similar to the text used in Paramount's official synopsis without any sort of attribution. --Deathawk (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should their names (or titles, I guess you can say) be capitalized in the plot section? --Matt723star (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. — Film Fan 21:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Psychological horror

This is a psychological horror film. Why is the word "psychological" being removed? — Film Fan 14:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not clear if she's insane or the guy is really some kind of cruel and selfish deity. --2003:71:4E16:4B43:9477:98D7:10EC:171D (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)