Talk:The Number 23/Archive 1
How about a citation[edit]
How about a citation for the Mayan "predicting the end of a new era" thing? TheShadowZero 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it wasn't on the trailer, then it should be removed from the page anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 11:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I never saw that trailer, but I think it's interesting that everyone talks about the Mayans predicting the end of the world when they did no such thing. My calander will end on December 31, 2007; if I don't buy another calendar, will the world end? Also, this looks like a stupid movie. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind is Jim Carrey's good "serious" movie. Professor Chaos 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In the trivia secsion, saying that this film "is very similar to Stranger than Fiction" is a stretch if I ever heard one, seeing as how they're in COMPLETELY SEPARATE GENRES and that the plots aren't similar IN THE SLIGHTEST.
- Point taken - statment removed. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although its not "very" similar to Stranger than Fiction, it is a little bit (just a little). Example: both movies are about a guy who has a book written about him, and someone (whether it be the guy or someone else) is supposed to die at the end. KKIPPES 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Issues I have w/ the article[edit]
The MPAA rating of the film is not mentioned. The title should be 'The Number 23(movie)'. It would clarify things for people before they click the link. Randomfrenchie 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We (the wiki collective) should add a critical response to this article. The movie is being almost universally trashed (not surprising, considering how much the trailer insults our intelligence) YoungAristotle 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. If I have the time, I'll take a look around and collect some articles this weekend. MSN was just vicious; they panned the film, the dialogue, the writing, and of course, Joel Schumacher. On a side note, isn't it a tad self-contradictory to have a "viral site" for the film? That sounds a concept slapped together by tragically unhip MBA's. Akbeancounter 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I already added that using rottentomatoes as a summarizing tool. Quadzilla99 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the plot summary was a bit spotty. It should be looked over for clarity issues Nevermore27 00:54, 15 March 2007
- Trivia says "See also Alfred Harth - eleven fingers left twelve right." What does this mean? Does the guy have 11 fingers on his left ahdn, and 12 on his right? I don't understand this. //Kada 7 april 2007
- Removed that last bit... not sure what it's on about. ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to fill in some details re: plot. There's still a lot more to do, of course. I agree that some critical response is probably called for. But how to go about it seems a matter of taste. The difficulty, with a movie this incoherent, is that it's almost impossible to not explain the movie (as an encyclopedia entry should do) in a way that does not fill in the many blanks that the film itself leaves. That is, the risk is that the reviewer will tie together loose ends that were in the story, simply out of the necessity of trying to give the reader a clear sense of what the movie was (apparently?) about. The review will, in other words, often be more coherent than the actual film, which raises issues about interpretive license. Not something that would have to rule out our trying, just something that's always a problem with films that actually make little sense. C d h 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
euphoria?[edit]
"As Walter reads the novel and sees the character surrendering himself to his own paranoia, he begins to experience similar feelings of euphoria." Euphoria? Surrendering to paranoia isn't a sensation of well-being or elation. --ScarletSpiderDavE 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You've quite obviously never been paranoid. 58.164.238.186 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
The Plot[edit]
The plot part of this page makes no sense, names are given without any identification and the text is very skatchy. I haven't seen the film and so I cannot correct it, perhaps somebody else could. Dusis 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Someone needs to edit that.89.156.168.97 (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The plot description fits so and so. The part where the protagonost (Walter) discovers that he actually is the killer is more complicated. I just saw the film, and I understood most of it as corresponding to the plot description. I did not understand how the professor, the old man whose address was given back in the red book, was killed and the plot description does not mention it - probably important to understand that scene. Did the old man cut his own throat or did Walter kill (again)? The main theme of the film (there is no fate, it's your decision which counts) is fairly well demonstrated by the plot. I think the plot has enormous plot-holes, though. --d-axel (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
23 = Discordian?[edit]
"The plot involves an obsession with the 23 Enigma, the Discordian belief that all incidents and events are directly connected to the number 23..."
Waitaminute... Just because Discordianism makes a big deal about 23 doesn't mean they own it or invented it. They just adopted it, compiled some instances, and came up with some theories, and i guess promoted it. People WERE obsessed with the number long before Discordianism, and there are plenty of people who are or have been so obsessed or interested and are not Discordians at all! As a perfect example, this movie and its characters have pretty much NOTHING to do with Discordianism outside of the number 23. While 23 is a very prevalent Discordian idea, as Dicordianism is rather a dis-organized religion, it is by no means required dogma, and can easily be seen as not particularly necessary nor related to most other core Discordian beliefs. Calling the 23 enigma a "Discordian" belief is like calling charity a Christian belief: technically true, but rather misleading!P I'll just go ahead and cut "Discordian" out of that statement; if anyone clicks on "23 Enigma," they'll find out annyway.) Elgaroo 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Plus, 23 is pretty incidental to Discordianism. The important number to Discordians is 5. 23 just happens to be a very, very easy number to turn into 5.71.221.235.63 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Topsy Kretts[edit]
Why does Topsy Kretts slit his own throat? That does not make any sense in this plot summary. :&
Dr. Sirius, who is Topsy Kretts, became obsessed with the number 23 after taking Sparrow's book for himself and publishing it. So when he sees the man that was the cause for him becoming obsessed with the number 23 running towards him accusing him of a bunch of stuff he probably freaked out and killed himself. ...Sorry, it makes a lot more sense if you watch the movie. 24.16.25.201 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is among the plot holes in this movie. Suicide is a major theme in this pic but an explanation other than "You should be dead" is not given. Sugestion is that 23 is a killer.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. No, it is not a "plot hole" that he kills himself. Because you believe the number 23 has no meaning has no relation to it's meaning within the film. People like you are just idiotic, you think that because 23 is just a number it is suddenly not a big deal to the characters within the film who think it is a big deal. It is not a plot hole because you want a character to behave a certain way and they do not. Dr. Sirius kills himself because he is deranged after years of being "haunted", you could say, by the number 23. Suddenly the man who created all these problems for himself has come back into his life, so he kills himself because he can't handle it. Like, strangely enough, many suicides. 58.164.238.186 (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
Clean up tag[edit]
I removed the clean up tag. No reason was given back in May, and the many edits since then probably took care of whatever reason the tagger had but neglected to write down. Robert Happelberg 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Excessively Long Plot Summary Tag[edit]
I visited this article to read the plot summary. It was because I only watched parts of the film and I was totally confused by what was happening. I wanted a detailed plot summary and I knew I would probably find it here on wikipedia. I thought the editor did a pretty good job on the summary. I definitely wouldn't want the article to have less detail in the plot summary. What do other people think? --MiamiManny 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The person who placed the tag should've given an explanation here. But but despite their failing to do so, I have to agree that the plot summary was excessively long when I read it earlier today. There's too much of talk of how such and such numbers add up to 23. Here at Wikipedia it would be good enough to list just two or three such examples that have the most bearing on the plot and to mention that Walter Sparrow does a lot of these calculations in the film. Though it wouldn't hurt Wikipedia to have an external link to a page
I totally agree. I really appreciate the effort of the editor here giving us that much information, but I would certain need less information to get an idea od what the plot is about. A friend of mine recommended me this film, so I wanted to know the plot a little bit better before trying the rental option. I got a little bit dissapointed because here I found more than the plot; actually, I found the whole story, including the ending. I think that it is important when editing a plot just to stick to what is needed to understand the story, and maybe give some other interesting facts related with the film, characters, or events mentioned in the film. But I would certainly skip the lenghty description, with all the details, and the ending part. Would it be possible to edit it in this direction? Just a suggestion. --Shatik 1-3 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Budget/Cited Reception[edit]
Can someone please find that information and make a new section? this article is poor with too much unnecessary plot info. Philbuck222 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Philbuck222, you're quite welcome to find the "budget/cited reception" sources and add the information to the article. And then you can revise the plot section per your criticism. Ward3001 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
DVD Rental money[edit]
Decide which one it is... 24 million or about 26 million? (Gross revenue, and DVD Release paragraphs) also a source would be nice. --89.139.160.171 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
WHy all the release dates?[edit]
Does every other movie article have when it was shown on every cable station?
Childish Plot[edit]
The plot looks like it was written by a fourth grader. Somebody needs to read thru it and give a good cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.7.157 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean our plot summary, or the actual plot of the film? Some would say the film. PS, is Dr. Sirius a reference to R. U. Sirius? if so, tell him to give me back my umbrella.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ned & the Sparrows[edit]
IT might be just coincidence...but the value of Ned's name (A=1, B=2,...Z=26) is 23. Agatha Sparrow + Robin Sparrow + Walter Sparrow = 506, which divides by 23 twenty-two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.241.210 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Who's Ned? "Walter went into a rage, stabbing her and burying her in the park, which Ned observed." But "Ned" isn't in the list of characters and is not mentioned anywhere else in the plot summary. Who's Ned?71.174.239.20 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)