Talk:It Follows

Missing Citations

Most of the citations in this article are missing and do not show where the user got the information from, this should be adjusted and the uncited material fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Expand Production Section

The production section of this article is too short and underdeveloped and should be expanded later on when it is released on DVD.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What the woman is wearing

WP:FILMPLOT states: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."

What the woman is wearing is, in the words of Blue Eagle 21063, colour. This is a plot summary - not the place for colour. Only critical detail, necessary for a very high-level understanding of the plot, belongs in the plot summary. Popcornduff (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the young woman runs through a neighborhood in underwear and high heels is very unusual and therefore emphasizes her state of panic. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"in panic" covers her state of panic sufficiently. This is explained here: How to streamline a plot summary: Show, don't tell. Popcornduff (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a minor edit which helps explain the plot. I think it should stay. Let's see how other editors react to it. If they protest then I have no problems removing it. However, the fact that you have repeatedly reverted me for such a minor change strongly suggests that you're engaging in WP:OWN. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"This is a minor edit which helps explain the plot. I think it should stay." is not an argument. So far two editors have reverted you. Popcornduff (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about the plot as a whole, does this opening scene even matter? If it were completely absent from the film, again, nothing would change in the plot at all. The girl is never mentioned again, never seen again. Her death isn't discussed. I honestly think just removing this first bit entirely is the best course of action. Sock (tock talk) 17:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No objection here. Popcornduff (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then. I deleted the first sentence entirely. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Prostitutes

In the summary, this phrase is all that's included about the prostitutes: "Afterwards, Paul drives past prostitutes in a seedy part of town". I believe there should be more information regarding this, as it is more significant to the plot than it's made to sound. I believe the scene emphasizes the fact that a skeptical Paul needs to take safety pre-cautions and have intercourse with someone else in order to pass on the potential curse he may have received. I believe a big factor in Paul having intercourse with Jay was to protect her from the curse if it's still around. Now that Paul has it, he's just doing what needs to be done and passing it on. Does this sound right? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That's your own personal interpretation, so we can't include it, sorry. See MOS:FIC under "Analysis and interpretation", specifically: "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work. For example, we cannot state anything about whether the top remains spinning or topples at the end of Inception." Popcornduff (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)