Talk:The Theory of Everything (2014 film)

Contested deletion

This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... Seriously, not one attempt at an explaination. If he were to provide one, I'd be fine, but currently he is being a sad excuse for an editor.Rusted AutoParts 20:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep creating a redirect for a film that isn't in production, which you justify by adding a single sentence on the director's page. The deleting admin has explained to you why. And please, stop deleting speedy delete templates and calling me an asshole on my talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You were being one. I asked you numerous times to explain and you never did. And that's a ridiculous reason, if you look at CaptainAssassin's contributions, he's made several redirects to not in production films. I mention him as he's the one who first told you about this. Rusted AutoParts 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Captain Assassin was creating a lot of unsuitable redirects and I have had a lot of them deleted. We've been discussing these and he's stopped now. -Rob Sinden (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I got mad because it seemed you were doing it without engaging as to why. Now that I do, I shall stop. Rusted AutoParts 20:27 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary too long?

I don't think the plot summary was too long or excessively detailed. I came here looking for a plot summary, and this was just what I wanted. I would have been disappointed if it was shorter. I think it's the right length given the importance of the film.

Why do you think it's too long? --Nbauman (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the history, I think the deletions so far are making the article worse. This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Theory_of_Everything_%282014_film%29&diff=644706072&oldid=644665799 removes the wikilinks to terms that may be unfamiliar to non-technical or non-British readers, like black holes. While Hawkings' research isn't central to the movie, it's essential to his character and to understanding Hawkins and his relationships with the people around him. These are the kind of ideas he dedicated his life to. (You couldn't understand a biography of Alexander Flemming if it didn't explain what penicillin did.) This was an excellent lay explanation: "Stephen tells Jane his theory, and that he wishes to wind back the clock to the beginning of the universe to see what happened." Please put it back in. --Nbauman (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. The current plot summary is 1038 words.

I can tell you right off the bat that it contains unnecessary detail and redundant words, but I'm not in a position to fix it myself because I haven't seen the movie. Popcornduff (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked it over and there's definitely a bit of unnecessary detail in the summary of the plot... I'll check back tomorrow after when I have more time and I'll assist in rewriting it if it hasn't been checked out by then. I did have the chance to check out the film, but I won't say anything about it here. Thanks, user:Popcornduff for the insight and heads up in bringing my attention to this piece. WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT are pretty clear. Nbauman Does bring up a good point though. If the deletions to the summary are making the article worse, could we not simply find a different place for them throughout the article itself? A summary has to be a summary by definition, but other details may still remain pertinent to the article as a whole. Create a new section?Chewbakadog (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When I read WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT, "pretty clear" is not the phrase that springs to mind. WP:FILMPLOT says:

Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction'​s non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)

WP:FILMPLOT also says at the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."

I use Wikipedia a lot to get the plot of science-related films, and there are constant debates about whether the particular film is unconventional or complicated enough to go beyond the 700 word recommendation. I think 700 words is too short for a lot of films.

The Theory of Everything doesn't fit into a standard Hollywood formula. It's a biography, not fiction, and reality is often complicated. There are 2 reasons why this film is complicated: (1) It's about a scientist. A scientific idea is one of the most important facts about him. The summary should include at least a simple explanation of his scientific idea. In this case, the lay summary is "he wishes to wind back the clock to the beginning of the universe to see what happened." (2) He has one of the most devastating neurological diseases in medicine. One important theme of the film is how his disease affected his life. That was a major part of Jane Wilde's relationship to him and of the book she wrote. This is a complicated subject. As the disease progressed, there were more activities that he could not do. (I actually came here because I read a review of the film in BMJ (British Medical Journal) which explained how his handicap was portrayed in the film.) The human side of the story is that motor neuron disease need not prevent someone from marrying, having children, and doing important scientific work.

My philosophy is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The summary doesn't look broke to me. It seems as if the people who are shortening it are deleting important information, like "he wishes to wind back the clock to the beginning of the universe to see what happened." Some of the phrasing is a bit colloquial and choppy, but I'm afraid of an editor shortening it to make it even more choppy and deleting important information as well.

There are now editors who go through film articles in Wikipedia flagging every plot summary over 700 words, without thinking about it or considering the content. Somebody may write a bot for that some day. It's easy to do, but it's wrong.

Why are plot summaries limited to 700 words? Did anyone ever give a reason, besides, "700 words just seems right to me"? It's just an arbitrary number, right? --Nbauman (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where the 700-word limit came from, but I've yet to encounter a film whose plot can't be adequately summarised in that limit, and I've worked on a lot of movie articles by now. If you think some films need more than that, you need to get stricter about editing. It's not just about detail but good writing. Think about it not just in terms of what we're covering from the movie but how we cover it.

The current summary is overwritten regardless of the plot it summarises. For example, take the opening paragraph of the current plot summary:

In 1963, while attending a party, astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) meets Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), a fellow student at Cambridge University who is studying literature. They subsequently begin a relationship. Although Stephen excels at mathematics and physics, his friends and professors are concerned over the lack of a topic for his thesis. Stephen and his professor (David Thewlis) go to a lecture on black holes, which inspires Stephen to speculates that they may have been a part of the creation of the universe. He later decides that his thesis will be about time.

You can rewrite that without losing any information:

In 1963, Cambridge University astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) meets literature student Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) at a party and they begin a relationship. Although Stephen excels at mathematics and physics, his friends and professors are concerned about his lack of a thesis topic. After Stephen and his professor (David Thewlis) attend a lecture on black holes, Stephen speculates that they may have been part of the creation of the universe, and decides to write a thesis about time.

That cuts it from 95 words to 80, a 10%ish reduction. If you applied the same rigour to the rest of the plot summary's current 800ish words, you could probably get it under 700 words. That's before you even get into the business of deciding how much of that information is necessary in the first place. For example, do we need to know they met at a party? If not, we can just write "In 1963, Cambridge University astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) begins a relationship with literature student Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones)." As I said before, I haven't seen the movie yet, and so I'm not in a position to make edits like that with confidence.

Remember, getting it under 700 words isn't the goal in itself; the goal is a concise, elegantly-written summary that tells the reader all they need and no more. If you're over 700 words, you've probably failed. Popcornduff (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated information

In the Production section, the part about Hawking licensing his voice for use is repeated in two subsections. Not too sure how to fix it myself as the first occurrence is part of a informative quote, while the second belongs in it's subsection, so I thought I'd just point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opencooper (talk • contribs) 07:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting information?

This part doesn't make sense because how could the screen writer have read the book in 2004 when it was published in 2007? Could we check the source for this claim?

In 2004, McCarten read Jane Hawking's memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, and subsequently began writing a screenplay adaptation of the book, with no guarantees in place.

Pomodecon (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)