Talk:Columbus (2017 film)

Plot summary?

The plot summary does not seem to tell a story. There is more information in the cast character detail than in the movie storyline. Does more detail need added to the plot? Eschoryii (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I wanted a longer more detailed plot summary. User:TheMovieGuy disagreed [1] and has continued to keep the plot very short.[2]

You could say there really isn't very much plot, but I like it better how the review from Variety describes it as "maximum soulfulness in a minimalist drama". The story is about a man who visits his sick father in hospital and while there strikes up a friendship with an intelligent young woman. They hang out, they talk about architecture a lot, you wonder about what they aren't saying, you admire the scenery. It perhaps isn't clear from the keyword estranged that Jin doesn't want to be there and has a job and a life he is being pushed to get back to, but still he is reluctant to leave. His identity as a Korean American and his relationship with his father is explored. There's a subplot about the assistant Elanor. Casey and her relationship with her mother is explored, particularly her fears that her mother is relapsing into her drug habit. Casey is reluctant to leave, to move on. I think the film is contrasting the two leads and their very different lives, but maybe it is better that the plot section not include any speculation or interpretation. There is maybe a bit of will-they-wont-they romantic tension between Jin and Casey, but again maybe that's there and maybe that's just one view of the film. There's lots and lots of hanging around and talking about the local architecture. They try to decide what to do next with their lives. Again it is a low key film and I knew that before I watched it and was in just the right mood to enjoy it (but on a different day I might not have enjoyed it as much). Leaving out the hanging around, the talk of architecture, and all the subtext, does make for a very minimalist plot summary.

I do still think the plot section is too short (a mere 226 words at the time of my writing this comment) but ultimately expanding other parts of the article such as the critical response section might be more useful and helpful to a readers' understanding of the film. -- 109.78.250.244 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree the plot summary needs more detail. Your first seven lines reflects what's going on in the movie. As soon as you say "I think" you are in the hated personal point of view area. I just read TheMovieGuy's talk page and he is an aggressive editor. The talk page is where one is to seek consensus. You might try to add more texture. I just hate edit battles. Making a summary shorter is not a valid edit when the plot is less than 500 words. I toured Columbus, Indiana as part of my college architecture course so I too liked the movie. The Wiki world does not like personal likes and dislikes. In reality we only edit topics we like. I encourage you to add to the article.Eschoryii (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I generally stick to the rule "say what you see" when it comes to plot summaries. I believe most of my subjective interpretations are pretty similar to the interpretations of various critics. We could probably establish that the film does in fact show and tell us all those things that might seem subjective, only this film naturalistically gives us all those details interspersed in larger conversations, making it more difficult to distill into an objective summary. Since User:TheMovieGuy is still actively keeping the summary extremely short I'm not motivated to swim upstream against that.

Maybe if I randomly rewatch the film on television at some point in the future I'll give rewriting the plot summary a try, but more likely I'll move on to something else. I had not checked this article in ages, it is only coincidental that I was here only shortly after you commented (so I'm glad you noticed my reply, but after this I will probably only reply by trying to improve the article). -- 109.76.155.74 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone still seems determined to keep this article short and stunted, not just the plot section. An editor made a good faith effort to expand the critical response section with well researched analysis and it was deleted too.[3] Could be restored and maybe instead of including it as Critical response it could be included as part of a Themes or Analysis section as some film articles do. Maybe it would be better to give up and add to Everipedia instead. -- 109.78.206.20 (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Runtime

The film is said to be 104 minutes, from a source linked to the sundance version of the film. The final theatrical version came at 100 minutes so having both or choosing the theatrical version would be better.LuisHRoldanus (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

BBFC lists two runtimes, (read down the page, click on the Feature sub-heading) [4] Film (theatrical release) 104m 1s and Video (home media) 99m 46s

Probably best to stick with 104 minutes. -- 109.78.206.20 (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Reorganize Critical response?

An editor tagged[5] the Critical response section using the template {{hard to navigate}}. No edit summary or explanation was provided. The section is detailed, but I reject the assertion that it is too long or hard to navigate, nonetheless if editors have concerns or suggestions about how to improve the article perhaps they could explain further. Maybe section could be organized differently? Maybe information could be added elsewhere, maybe subsections? Please do explain how you think the article might be improved. -- 109.77.202.9 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The tag was added in February 2022 but no further action was taken. I requested comment in August and no further action was taken. I would still welcome discussion on how to improve this article but since no action has been taken and it is unclear how the section might be improved I have removed the outdated tag.[6] -- 109.76.133.184 (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)