Talk:Don't Worry Darling

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

I am suggesting edits because of given other misinformations.Changed director name and oftenly changes in the actors names. Pelin renkli (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 54nd60x (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

La watermelona (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC) hay faltas de ortografia

Cambiar que Louis tomlinson que él está participando en la pelicula ya que Harry Styles lo dio en una entrevista de un articulo de wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by La watermelona (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Google translate: there are spelling mistakes / Change that Louis tomlinson that he is participating in the movie since Harry Styles gave it in an interview from a wikipedia article

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also note that this is the English Wikipedia and most users here do not speak Spanish, so it is helpful if you contribute to talk pages in English. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

177.239.47.111 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Liam payne is in the cast

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021 (2)

Add Louis tomlinson as cast 2405:205:1181:AAAB:410F:4E39:2185:F80D (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

213.64.116.140 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Niall horan

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon ⬡ 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

add louis tomlinson in the cast list IkissyZouis (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated information.

I keep removing information that is UNRELATED to marketing it. It should not he under marketing. The court papers having been served during the presentation is not marketing, therefore it should not be mentioned under marketing. Things like this are exactly why wiki is not considered a reliable source. 2600:1001:B00E:56AE:C967:7A72:2943:A4FF (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Reception and Styles

The "Reception" section here has way too much focus on Styles with a paragraph of 621 words about him, alone or in relation to Pugh. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE, especially considering that the start of the section mentions other factors that could be explored, like the cinematography, visual style, screenplay, and Wilde's direction. I'm going to cut this unduly-weighted paragraph down. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Sunshine773. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Felinefixesthings. See above. The excessive focus on Styles over any other aspect of this film is unacceptable per WP:UNDUE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

To expand on this, a "Reception" section needs to be written with a balanced sample of reviews. For example, if a film is universally praised or panned, the vast majority of reviews should be positive or negative, respectively. Similarly, there needs to be balanced language from the sample of reviews, which can cover a lot of ground. If reviews cover different aspects of a film, but editors focus on collecting only what reviews say about one aspect, then that is an WP:UNDUE problem. Editors need to follow the real world in what the trends are. For this film, with this, Pugh's performance is headlined, and its cinematography and style praised in the subtitle, with no mention of Styles in either. This source only mentions "a debatably entertaining turn by pop star Harry Styles", which is not substantial enough to warrant 621 words about him compared to Pugh's performance and the cinemagraphy and style. The BBC article here does not really define any trends and just pools some review quotes together, so the Rotten Tomatoes source is best to use at this time. In essence, too much is written about Styles in two ways -- I've never seen this much text focused on an actor who is opposite the star (Pugh), and it is even more obscene in undue weight in absence of anything about the film's cinematography and style. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the adds/restore that Felinefixesthings did. Way too excessive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I second your draft, Erik. Even now the quotes seem a bit repetitive and could be tightened up slightly more. Betty Logan (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User Felinefixesthings was mostly restoring what Sunshine773 added last week.[1] I was waiting to see first if the reviews would be trimmed back for other reasons (than WP:UNDUE). For example, critic David Poland may be recognized by Rotten Tomatoes and the critics association but he's on Substack and that might fall foul of WP:SELFPUB depending on how certain editors are feeling that day (as one editor already attempted[2]). Does Wikipedia treat Substack just like blogs or is it would it have been acceptable (except for WP:UNDUE) in cases like this where it is a recognized critic? -- 109.76.204.119 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: By your use of WP:SYNTH in your latest edit, please also remove “Don't Worry Darling received mixed reviews from critics, who praised Pugh's performance, the cinematography, and the visual style, but found the overall film to not be satisfying.” An individual editor read multiple reviews to come to insert that self summary as it is not from the RT summary citied in later lines. Thank you. Sunshine773 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We have two pieces from Rotten Tomatoes to use here:

• Critics' consensus, which says, "Despite an intriguing array of talent on either side of the camera, Don't Worry Darling is a mostly muddled rehash of overly familiar themes." This does not really say anything specific or positive or negative about any cast or crew member. The only item from this is that the film is "mostly muddled" and rehashes "overly familiar themes".
• Editorial has the following:

• Headline: "Don't Worry Darling Reviews: Florence Pugh's stunning performance elevates so-so mystery."
• Subtitle: "Critics say Florence Pugh delivers an awards-worthy performance in Olivia Wilde's sophomore feature, which is immaculately shot and impeccably stylized but ultimately isn't as satisfying as it should be."
• First main paragraph: "Florence Pugh could land another Oscar nomination for her performance in Don’t Worry Darling, if the movie as a whole isn’t dismissed by audiences... the first reviews of the twisty, feminist sci-fi drama mostly highlight Pugh as its revelatory saving grace, or close enough. This stylish sophomore directorial effort from actress-turned-filmmaker Olivia Wilde (Booksmart) is also said to look great and offer a debatably entertaining turn by pop star Harry Styles, and it will get people talking, whether the third act works or not."

I was paraphrasing these items covered in the editorial, and the critics' consensus is already quoted later. Do you disagree with the paraphrasing and/or the placement of the critics' consensus? The point of establishing this now is to use this as evidence on how to balance writing about different aspects of the film. We don't determine the balance ourselves by personally looking at reviews, we follow what trends others have reported. That's why it is undue weight to have much more about Styles than anything else, based on what we're looking at above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

To try to use a separate aspect as an example, none of the above mentions Chris Pine, so we would not expect to see much written about him, right? So why would we expect to write more about Styles than any other aspect? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am specifically referencing the removal of “Styles' performance was met with mixed reviews with the majority of top critics offering heavy critiques.” To me, that is a summary of the quoted critic reviews that were listed immediately after this. If this is to be removed (which is fine), I think it would be more fair that the direct critic consensus from rotten tomatoes was quoted to summarize the overall response to the film as opposed to what is there currently. That way it’s a third party, highly regarded source providing the summary of the overall response to the film. I would be fine with this before or after the listed data from rotten tomatoes or Metacritic. Sunshine773 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph references two Rotten Tomatoes sources: the editorial, and the critics' consensus. It sounds like you have a problem with the editorial? I think both are suitable because they do not overlap much and can be side-by-side. Whichever individual critics we sample, we would sample their thoughts on what is covered in the editorial and/or the critics' consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to share my response to accusations regarding undue weight. This response was posted in a separate talk page created by Erik where they posted concerns about the DWD article reception edits. I feel I’m being honed in on for derision and dissection here, and believe it’s far for me to share my previous response as there were many contributors to this editing. “ As I also outlined, several of the included reviews were comparing him to Pugh and indirectly or directly praising her performance in relation to his. So it was a dual sort of review. The bulk of top critic reviews honed in on his performance as a newcomer - whether positive or critical. That leaning is reflected in the summary and citiations of reviews. Intial reviews I saw and citied from Rotten Tomatoes were more critical or neutral, and especially focused on Styles' performance above that of others. Users added additional reviews that were released subsequently to demonstrate several positive receptions of his performance. I was adding reviews in early stages and the crtics' language praising Pugh was already there in the reception section (and I left it untouched). I supported and left ALL of the positive performance reviews about Styles' that other users added to my start. The reception section on a new film is going to be fluid and changing as new reviews come out. I did not censor the addition of any positive reviews. And it's not fair to go back to early editions to suggest bias or vendetta against Styles as reviews were still coming out and I had initially included the first batch of top critic reviews. Several of the reviews I included for his other film had extended references to Corrin and Dawson, and the overall reception to the film as a whole. Reviews for DWD tended to strongly focus on his performance and that's reflected in the contributions of several users to that section. And again, I didn't undo your reversions but I do agree it was a bit authoritarian considering how many users contributed to that section. I am newer to editing Wikipedia and started with a focus on one film my coworkers talked a lot about as they are fans of Pugh. I was then interested to see if Styles faired better in his next movie that comes out just weeks later. I spent time reading reviews of MP to see if his performance was received more positively than DWD so I decided to add the reviews I saw to the reception section for that movie as it was empty when I looked (including quite a bit about Corrin, Dawson, and the overall film also as I mentioned). There is no grand conspiracy or hatred of Styles. I don't know him. I think if I was so biased against him as you imply, I would spend a lot of time editing his page, album, etc. I have nothing against him and know little of him beyond the films my coworkers kept asking me to see with them.” Sunshine773 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care if you love or hate Styles as long as you can follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in writing about a film's critical reception. The problem here is proportionality. A film has acting, directing, cinematography, costume design, production design, visual effects, etc. Any given review will rarely focus on just one aspect. Coming here, I was appalled by how much text was devoted to Styles. A paragraph about Pugh is understandable, but a very long paragraph (by any standard) focusing on Styles and no other paragraphs about the film's themes, cinematography, or style, was very out-of-place. Two editors today agree that there is undue weight in the presentation of Styles more than anything else. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I will say in your messages to me, I felt it was much more than proportionality. In comments in the other talk and my user talk, you made remarks about his fans doing this and other veiled barbs that felt disparaging and depreciating. My points about my quotations being from the intial batch of reviews to get started, and then more positive reviews being added as they came out has been continually ignored. As has my point that several of the reviews quoted in the section about Styles' performance were comparative to Pugh and further illustrated the glowing critics' reviews about her. Those have been removed. If we are discussing proportionality, users in this talk were removing positive reviews about Styles' performance from the reception section while leaving the negative ones. And regarding user consesus, there were other users that undid and objected to your removals of text so that is shaky ground to stand on for either side. This was handled in a very authoritarian and dismissive way immediately with messages on talks and revisions. And you continued to pull me into it when I didn't touch your revisions. I chime in now again (my own fault) as I view some of your edits and choices as arbitrary. You apply rules to some places and not others. Sunshine773 (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: I am saying the RT critic consensus should be quoted over a user’s summary of critical response. That is more unbiased and fair. Sunshine773 (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Especially considering the editorial does not incorporate the 15 additional reviews added since publication of that editorial. Sunshine773 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a general Rotten Tomatoes problem, that the critics' consensus is published after the first reviews, and it's similar with any periodical summarizing what critics thought. Very rarely do we have such summaries after a week or two of the film's release that actually assess dozens or hundreds of reviews. But these sources are what the real world perceives of the film. It doesn't matter if we editors look at the reviews ourselves and think we see unreported trends. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a fundamentally flawed system that does not accurately represent critic reviews of films. Just because something is that way does not mean it should be that way. I am concluding this now. Have a good day. Sunshine773 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is flawed, but that does not mean we editors can take it upon ourselves to determine the trends of how critics received the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

But that is quite literally what the quoted and citied editiorial on reviews of the film (included in this article) is doing. If you can back up a trend summary with quotes from numerous top critics that should be grounds enough to establish a trend. Sunshine773 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the point is that reliable sources can establish these trends. We editors can't. That is WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is all out the door with your contribution to the SPI filed because I didn't respond within an hour to their comment to me. Astounding. The intention was not to help or educate me but to destroy my account and contributions. Sunshine773 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, Sunshine773 and Felinefixesthings are sockpuppets and have been blocked. Regarding the critical reception section, I think we only need 3-4 quotes about Styles (there are currently 10, even after some whittling). Do others agree? There can be additional paragraphs about the cinematography and the visual style, though we may see trends change once the film debuts. Editors may also want to look at My Policeman (film) which had the same Styles-centric issue. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your take on the critical reception section. The focus on Styles still feels excessive, even after the trimming that was done. Is it possible to condense the Pugh paragraph as well? From what I've seen on other film articles, separate paragraphs with multiple quotes regarding specific performances is atypical. Similarly, the critical reception section of My Policeman (film) is extremely long and overly focused on Styles, even after the removal of the edits from the sockpuppets. Dog Starkiller (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with condensing the Pugh paragraph too. In a perfect world, we would have reliable sources that summarize film reviews in a detailed manner, negating the need for referencing individual reviews. We really only cite individual reviews because summaries are often curt. For example, critics praised Pugh's performance, full stop. Why did they praise it? What did she do so well? Sampling individual reviews can flesh out the "why", but if it's just vague praise upon vague praise, it's not saying anything new. An example of what seems to be illustrative is Telegraph here saying, "Pugh makes for an ideal, increasingly mistrustful guide... she graduates to fully fledged movie star – poised, glamorous and bogglingly beautiful, yet also emotionally right beside you, and lifting every scene with sparklingly smart choices." That's my take anyway. A couple of quotes (or paraphrases) like that is sufficient on top of learning that critics liked her performance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the quote you chose from the Telegraph, which as you say, is illustrative of what was done well by Pugh. With your point about fleshing out the "why" in mind, I reread the critical response section. I don't think the current inclusion of individual reviews succeed in doing what you say they should-- they mention Pugh's outstanding performance, one critic commends it, another says it saves the film, etc. I'm not against the citation of individual reviews, I just think we can reduce the number of them, while leaving enough in there to back up a statement about critics praising her performance. I'm not sure how to go about doing that though! And it's entirely possible that the huge Styles paragraph has made me look more critically at the Pugh one. Dog Starkiller (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You have a lot of experience with articles about movies so you should remove the stuff that's not necessary and add what you think is missing. Just look at the difference between those and Olympus Has Fallen. 92.80.155.56 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on including in the lead section

Should we include Styles' performance as one of the things criticized in the opening section? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Do not include Unlike Pugh, who has consistently been praised for her performance, the reviews for Styles have greatly varied. Yes, he's received a fair share of negative reviews, but he's also received praise for his performance. Here are some reviews from notable sources that praise his performance [3], [4], [5]. In its assessments of reviews, Rotten Tomatoes calls his performance "debatably entertaining". Unless someone can show reliable sources that indicate that the majority of reviews for his performance have been negative, it should without a doubt be removed for the opening section. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Do not include. (I came here from the RfC listing.) I read the section of the page that covers the critical reception, and my first, brief, response was that it should be included, because the lead should reflect the main text, and it was looking like the critical reception was focusing on how Styles was criticized. But then I got to the reviews that said favorable things about his performance, and I read the talk section above. Whatever editors decide about whether to prune the text of the criticism section (which is not the RfC question), it seems clear that Styles got a variety of reviews, and it would be misleading, and probably contrary to WP:BLP, to focus on the negative reviews in the lead. I'd suggest changing the last part of that sentence from: "but criticized Wilde's direction, the screenplay, and Styles' performance" to: "but criticized other aspects of the film". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Do not include based on the current available sourcing. Editorial has the following:

• Headline: "Don't Worry Darling Reviews: Florence Pugh's stunning performance elevates so-so mystery."
• Subtitle: "Critics say Florence Pugh delivers an awards-worthy performance in Olivia Wilde's sophomore feature, which is immaculately shot and impeccably stylized but ultimately isn't as satisfying as it should be."
• First main paragraph: "Florence Pugh could land another Oscar nomination for her performance in Don’t Worry Darling, if the movie as a whole isn’t dismissed by audiences... the first reviews of the twisty, feminist sci-fi drama mostly highlight Pugh as its revelatory saving grace, or close enough. This stylish sophomore directorial effort from actress-turned-filmmaker Olivia Wilde (Booksmart) is also said to look great and offer a debatably entertaining turn by pop star Harry Styles, and it will get people talking, whether the third act works or not."

It is a falsehood to convert from this, Styles's "debatably entertaining turn" to say that critics criticized his performance. If there is another reliable source that actually says this, we can consider it. Pinging Nyxaros since they restored this phrasing here without explanation, and JDDJS rightfully undid that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Do not include. (Summoned by bot) per Tryptofish. To include this in the lead, a much clearer and more consistent level of negative reviewing of his performance should exist, this doesn't rise to that level AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Do not include, as per current sourcing. If available sources swing the balance then it might be worth inclusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Do not include, as inclusion wouldn't represent reception to the portrayal in a balanced way. Originoa (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kaufman Desert Home.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Budget range removed

The documentation for {{Infobox film}} says not to cherry pick budget figures and if reports differ to include both as a range. Despite this some editors seem to think it appropriate to not to include the different sources and to throw them out in favor of more recent information.[6] The Forbes reference still exists and it put the budget in the range of $20-30 million. If editors really believe Forbes is wrong and that it should be thrown out and the documentation disregarded I think that needs to be discussed and more clearly decided. This seems to keep happening and I think it is wrong to throw out other figures without more information. (For example if the film was greenlit with a certain budget and ended up costing more in the end, then that is an interesting detail that it would be helpful to explain in the production section.) As it stands we do not know if the different budget estimates mean anything and it seems hasty and contrary to what the documentation recommended to have thrown the other figures out like that. --109.78.204.93 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

An editor restored some of the deleted information as a footnote.[7] That helps but it would be better if editors followed the guidelines and did not try to exclude inconvenient figures without proper discussion and explanation. -- 109.77.199.129 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

normally that’s true about the range, but the $20 million source is Variety, who is now citing as $35 million. So it doesn’t make sense to have the reference for one figure be contradicted by the same publication with a more up-to-date number. Reports change, numbers are updated. Lots of early budget reports go up with post- costs or down with tax incentives. TropicAces (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

it doesn’t make sense that's your interpretation and you are making assumptions. Forbes reported the budget as $20 to $30 million. As far as I can tell Variety has not given any explanation or correction for publishing two different figures. Lots of early budget reports go up with post- costs or down with tax incentives. That is a reasonable educated guess but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we simply do not know any of that for a fact. Until we know more the figures should not be excluded without at least some explanation or discussion. As I said already if editors do actually have information about why the early figures are different, such as tax incentives, or cost overruns, then that is something that should be noted in the Production section. Deleting sources is not constructive. Please stop making assumptions and deleting sources you find inconvenient. The documentation expressly tells you not to do that. -- 109.79.175.184 (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record I eventually fixed it.(diff) I remind editors that the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize and not supplant key information from the article, which means that the information should be in the article body first, before being added to the Infobox. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Long plot

The plot section is over 1000 words, but the article is currently locked so I cannot tag it as {{Long plot}}. WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words. See also WP:STREAMLINE. -- 109.77.198.234 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Long plot has been tagged[8] -- 109.77.199.129 (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But I thought the whole idea of Plot sections was to give people a cheaper, easier alternative to actually seeing the film :?) – AndyFielding (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It can still do that while also being concise, if you want a detailed blow-by-blow plot summary you might want to subscribe to Sight and Sound magazine. According to Wikipedia MOS:FILMPLOT the plot section is there to support the rest of the article, to complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. To put it another way, if film articles did nOt include a plot section or concise recap then we might end having to explain important plot points elsewhere in other sections like the Critical response section. -- 109.79.175.184 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Andy was being sarcastic, considering the smiley. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Say what?

Jack hugs Alice, begging her to forgive him, them attempts to strangle and rape her. However, Alice kills him with a glass tumbler, destroying his consciousness in the process.

Um, isn't that what usually happens when someone dies, at least from our Earthly viewpoint? Or am I missing something? (Does Jack actually, like, disappear?) Perhaps this should be clarified. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Think of Matrix - if you die in simulation, you die in real world, too. Gevorg89 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • You know that, I know that, but it is poorly phrased and encyclopedia readers who have not seen it should not need to perform mental gymnastics to figure it out, it should be written more clearly.
    Change X "kills him with a glass tumbler, destroying his consciousness in the process." to
    Y "kills him with a glass tumbler, also ending his life in the real world." or any other wording that makes it clearer.
    Anyhow, AndyFielding is a registered user so he could WP:JUSTDOIT and improve the wording himself. -- 109.79.169.156 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

    When I still felt I could log in here as myself, I did make what seemed obvious improvements according to general principles of good writing, grammar and style. When I didn't fully understand something, or felt a change would be too subjective, I asked about it in Talk.
    

    Unfortunately, many of my changes were oddly resented by people whose writing/editing experience was obviously limited. (I couldn't imagine them with professional backgrounds, anyway.) So I stopped contributing my time here every day, and make only occasional suggestions when actually consulting articles. (As many of you may know, one can't just stop being an editor [g].)
    

    So, no—despite Jimmy's exhortation to "be bold", JUSTDOINGIT is too apt to annoy people who prefer unnecessary words, redundancy, and eccentric, inconsistent style, and I don't want to feel like I'm wasting my time. I guess that's the downside of the self-regulation thing. 2001:569:72B0:D900:1506:13FD:A471:85BF (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

On-set conflicts

Rumours of unprofessionalism or a screaming match between Wilde and Pugh, ergo on-set conflict were denied both by Warner and by 40 named crew members. Additionally, before the two statements, the director of photography -whom Pugh praised during the Biennale red carpet- had also repeatedly denied such rumours. The reason behind Pugh's presence or lack of on promotional activities is irrelevant speculation to a section titled "on-set" conficts WP:NOTGOSSIP Myrtoulina (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTGOSSIP does not apply very directly here. We need to look at the language under #4, not just reference the shortcut. First, the passage is primarily about what is warranted in a person's biography. Secondly, these reports have been published by reliable sources, and Wikipedia should summarize these sources to describe disputes. I do not see grounds to remove the "On-set conflicts" section but am fine with including the denials and reorganizing the content for clarity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Template:Overly detailed is the wrong template for a Plot section. Please replace it with Template:Long plot. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:AD8A:A74F:9D64:6857 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the template. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Plot - Shelley

Was Shelley abused or willful participant? She was keeping wives in order, and her words after killing her husband could be interprated she killed him for failing to stop Aloce and that she'll be in charge from now on. Gevorg89 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gevorg89 Shelley was controlling Frank a la the 2004 Stepford Wives "twist" ending. The plot summary here is flat-out wrong. 75.84.35.89 (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Characterization

Please revert this edit[9] which changes the word "it" to the title of this film. The "it" of the sentence was referring to how Olivia Wilde characterized Jordan Peterson, not to the film as a whole. Changing the word from "it" to the film title, changes the meaning of the sentence, and implies that Peterson is commenting on the film as a whole but Peterson has given no indication that he had seen the film at that time, he was merely responding to Wilde's interview comments.

I also have some concerns about another change to that paragraph, as a source from several weeks later was inserted before the older sources,[10] and this might be misleading to some readers. Peterson has repeatedly stated his pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps views to self improvement, his willingness to listen to disaffected people is not endorsement of their views. Inserting that later source in front of the two existing sources without adding any context seems to change the emphasis. (The Variety article is hyperbolic to describing the teary-eyed show of emotion in the interview as "Breaks Down in Tears" but that's another matter.) I would suggest at a minimum moving the position of later reference from Variety to after the other two references, or perhaps adding some context or removing much later reference entirely. -- 109.77.198.206 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote actually says "as he [Chris Pine] pillories me in the latest bit of propaganda" (my emphasis). This can only be a reference to in the film. If he was just responding to Wilde, why mention Pine? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Independent[11] quoted a longer interview from the National Post [12] I would encourage editors to read the latter where Peterson is quoted at greater length and his points are clearer. The full quote actually says:

I also hope that Chris Pine at least does the sartorial splendour of my very formal public wardrobe justice as he pillories me in the latest bit of propaganda disseminated by the woke, self-righteous bores and bullies who now dominate Hollywood, and who insist that the production of such tripe

Peterson made a flippant remark expressing appreciation that someone as handsome as Pine has been cast, and hoped that he would be finely dressed. It is the second part of the sentence that is the important part, where Peterson rejects the characterization and directs his objection but at the producers of the film (Wilde et al.) more than the actor (Pine). (A previous version of this text did mention Pine but an editor decided the joking appreciation of the casting was not worth mentioning here at all[13] and cut directly to criticism of the characterization.)

We could elaborate and include more details, but it seems unnecessary to refute the obviously false "pseudo intellectual" label (the National Post article does so thoroughly), when the point most relevant to this film article, is that Peterson was made aware of the comment from Wilde, and rejected the comparison. Peterson made his initial comments before the film even went on general release, it is misleading to even suggest he was rejecting the film as a whole not having seen it. In his interview with Piers Morgan, quoted by Variety[14] he says he watched the trailer, and expressed interest in the premise of the film "I thought, ‘I’d go see that movie.’ and perhaps I will,". Peterson was clearly not claiming to have seen the film yet, and Peterson was not wholly rejecting it, he was only specifically rejecting how Wilde chose to characterize him in her interview. (If the article wasn't locked I would have reverted this edit already[15] simply because some editors insist on needlessly and excessively repeating full film title throughout articles, only this specific case is worse because the change was also misleading, and needs to be reverted.)

TLDR changing the word "it" to "Don't Worry Darling" should be reverted[16] as it was a misleading change that implied Peterson was rejecting the film as a whole when the "it" in question was the comments and characterization made by Wilde. -- 109.76.205.64 (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please revert the misleading change.[[17] Peterson is not the kind of person to reject a film he has not even seen. Please do feel free to disagree with Peterson for what he actually says but there are more than enough people getting the wrong idea without this film article adding misleading implications or unnecessary distortions. -- 109.76.197.94 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Escape Orbit that "in the latest bit of propaganda" refers to the film. I do not see any other way to read it. This is further cemented by the fact that he calls it "tripe" that had been produced ("...the production of such tripe"). ( Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Umm, it shouldn't be about agreeing or disagreeing, there are facts that are evident from the reliable sources and direct quotes. It should be clearer if you have read the referenced articles. Peterson had not seen the film, which was made inarguably clear in the later Piers Morgan interview quoted by Variety[18] and he hasn't ruled out the possibility of watching it at some point in the future. Peterson could only have been referring to the interview comments made by Wilde, the pronoun "it" was referring to the characterization mentioned in that very sentence only a few words previously. Peterson does not specifically call the film "tripe" he can only be generally critical of "such tripe" not having actually seen the film yet. Replacing "it" with the full title of the film was presumably well intentioned but it made the sentence less clear. -- 109.76.197.94 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

He was referring to the film. It does not matter if he saw it or not. Wilde talked about Peterson, and Pine did not talk about Peterson. Peterson is basically saying, "I hope Pine dresses as me well while he plays me in an insulting way in the latest movie by 'woke' people in charge who think this kind of movie should be made." Feel free to get other opinions. Pinging Escape Orbit in case they want to expand on this any more. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The situation isn't helped by the quote making no grammatical sense; "who insist that the production of such tripe". Either he, or the newspaper quoting him, has messed up. The crux of the matter is if you believe the latter half of the quote is about Wilde's comments, Pine's portrayal, or the film itself. The fact he talks about Pine being "in" at the start of the quote, and says "production" at the end, would strongly suggest he's talking about the film as a whole throughout. There's nothing to suggest he switched topics midway through. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Peterson clearly stated that he had not watched the film. This is one of several reasons why his comments do not belong in the Critical response, and should not have been moved there.[19] (He isn't a film critic, and the Critical response section is primarily for film critics, another reason not to include his comments in that section.) Please revert the move.[20] -- 109.77.205.15 (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Peterson is not a film critic and had not even seen the film, his comments don't belong in the Critical response section. I have moved his comments out of the Critical response section and back beside comments from Wilde saying the character was based on him. -- 109.76.136.1 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot change

Under the plot, someone changed the ending to something completely false. 2603:6081:4E00:83E:D1FA:7AB4:3307:736E (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)