Talk:Parasite (2019 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reviews required

Can someone provide reviews of the film that explain why it is popular in Korea, and why it has a high rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.180.117 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Poverty and the spiraling darkness, however for poverty Shameless (American TV series) is pretty good and often tops it without going all dark and lightens the perceived injustice with a bit of humor. For darkness, there are better Korean films. The media tells all the winning became possible because it was a good statement to put out there in this time (:Media reasons on why everyone should hate the American president, and importance of Bernie's movement to reduce the socioeconomic class difference), and the Neon (distributor) saw this opportunity and have used it very well.

"Parasite (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parasite (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Letterboxd

Wikipedia does not include WP:USERGENERATED content, such as content based on web polls or other user votes. If an exception is to be made in the case of Letterboxd (or if there is some precedent for making such an exception) then it should be be discussed first.

This shouldn't be included without other sources besides Letterboxd reporting on it, or a specific local consensus to allow this exception. -- 109.79.171.110 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Dubbed into which languages?

It is lacking the info into which languages the movie has been dubbed. Sadly, I can't find any complete info. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

One-sentence summary?

The intro says

follows the members of a poor household who scheme to become employed by a wealthy family by infiltrating the household and posing as unrelated, highly qualified individuals.

I assume the word "household" refers to two different households? Maybe the second "household" could be replaced by a different word, possibly by "family". AxelBoldt (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Does my edit fix the issue satisfactorily? Sdkb (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Sdkb (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Parasite (2019 film) → Parasite (film) - I think it's safe to say this is the more popular version than the other two films with the same title, after its Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best International Feature win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottSullivan1 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This definitely took a massive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC jump last night. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because parasite/parasitism is the primary topic. All other topics that are called "Parasite" are secondary. In this case, all films called "Parasite" are required to be disambiguated from each other. This is reflected at WP:PRIMARYFILM, "If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Wikipedia, compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings)." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Erik's reasoning above. To elaborate with an example not provided at WP:PRIMARYFILM—we disambiguate Halloween (1978 film) and Halloween (2007 film), because the primary topic for the term "Halloween" is the holiday. Similarly, because the primary topic for the term "parasite" is the type of organism, all films under that name should be disambiguated. —Matthew - (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik and Matthew. The form "Parasite (film)" is incomplete disambiguation which redirects to the dab page Parasite (disambiguation)#Film and TV. Very few, if any, users who intend to access the film, are going to type "Parasite (film)". Virtually everyone will simply type "Parasite", be redirected to Parasitism, will see the hatnote, ""Parasite" redirects here. For other uses, see Parasite (disambiguation)", will then proceed to Parasite (disambiguation) and ultimately click on Parasite (2019 film), listed under section header "Film an TV". Since the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is titled "Parasitism" and not "Parasite", I would support, if a sufficient number of users is willing to accept such a departure from norm, a separate primary topic for the 2019 film, titled simply Parasite, with a hatnote pointing to Parasitism. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title seems to be the best. There are multiple examples of media with Parasite as a title. Gerry D (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We need to be careful about what seems popular at the moment. In two years, while the importance of this film will still be important, it is unlikely to be that much more significant than the other two films named Parasite. --Masem (t) 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Though I too oppose the requested move, I don't agree with this reasoning. As a winner of numerous awards, the first Korean film to win the Palme d'Or, and the first non-English language film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, I think it will continue to be more significant than the 1982 film of the same name (or the similarly named 1925 film). The issue isn't which film is most significant, but rather what the primary topic is. In this case, none of the aforementioned films are the primary topic—parasitism is. —Matthew - (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. We shouldn't change disambiguation because of popularity, otherwise we let the news judge topic relevance. In agreement with Erik, the primary topic is parasitism. The title and theme of the film were inspired by parasitism. Owynhart 02:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The form Parasite (2019 film) is clear and will avoid future confusion. Parasite (film) should redirect to Parasite (2019 film) Disambiguation would allow the other Parasite films to be identified and accessed. This would also allow for the film to be the primary film topic. Eni2dad (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per SNOW. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The media has it wrong, again (technically).

The Artist was technically the first non-English film to win the Best Picture award at the Oscars. Should we subject this article to media sloppiness? Owynhart 09:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

From the article of that film: "Once the choreography is complete, the two dancers are heard panting. The director of the musical calls out audibly, "Cut!" to which Zimmer adds: "Perfect. Beautiful. Could you give me just one more?" Valentin, in his only audible line, replies "With pleasure," revealing a French accent.[19] The camera then pulls back to the sounds of the film crew as they prepare to shoot another take. " 50.200.179.130 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Artist states in the first line that it's a French film, with the following note: There has been some confusion on whether the film is French or American. The official American website states it "is the first American film by acclaimed French writer/director Michel Hazanavicius", while the AMPAS and mass media describe it as a French film, given that the film was directed and produced by Frenchmen and that the two lead roles are played by French actors. I think we're on technically safe ground with the intro, describing Parasite as the "first non-English language film to win Best Picture", since as noted above, while The Artist was French, it wasn't French-language. That's a very technical distinction, though, so I think we ought to add an explanatory note. Sdkb (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a note next to that line. However, my knowledge of the Oscars is a bit spotty. I'm not entirely sure if The Artist was indeed the first foreign film to win Best Picture. Someone should fact-check that. Owynhart 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Owynhart, technically if we're classifying "foreign" as 'still in English but from a different country', then Slumdog Millionaire was British. But that depends on our definition of the word "foreign". Finding an article on the subject is basically impossible for... obvious reasons aha. QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd As far as I know, almost all major award organizations in the Anglophone world uses language as the distinction between an "international film" and a native one. This is why I think the Academy's decision to change the name of the award from Foreign Language Feature to International Feature is a mistake. A film can be financed and produced by a non-English speaking company, have English dialogue, and still be considered a native film, like The Artist. It also disqualifies them from the Foreign Language/International Feature category. Owynhart 06:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

First Foreign Language movie to win Oscar for Best Picture?

Wasn't that 'Life is Beautiful' (Italian), https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Beautiful#Accolades says in 1999 it won both Best Foreign Language and Best Picture. I remember both the movie and the Academy Awards ceremony where Robert Benigni danced across the backs of the seats. AntC2 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It was nominated for Best Picture but did not win. It won Best Foreign Language Film, Best Actor, and Best Music. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we actually know the last names of the wives?

It Korea, it is very common for wives to keep their maiden names, so I was wondering if the movie actually mentions the last names of the wives. In the Korean Wikipedia, only first names are given. William2001^(talk) 13:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Chung-sook's full name is 박충숙 (Park Chung-sook) as shown below her silver medal around 00:02:45 in the US iTunes version, but people keep reverting it to Kim. I heard (haven't verified) that Yeon-gyo's full name appears as a saved contact on a phone. --Kjoonlee 17:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Bong wins four awards?

The Parasite page currently states: "Bong became the first person to win four awards for a single film in Academy Award history."

This is not true, since Best International Feature Film goes to the country of origin, but does not go to the director, even though the director gets to accept it and even has their name etched on it.

This is backed up in the following article. https://www.thewrap.com/oscars-to-add-winning-foreign-language-directors-name-on-statuette/

Bong Joon-ho, therefore, only has three Oscars: for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.121.131.10 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you say the winner of Best Picture only belongs to the picture and not the producers, then? The distinction is arbitrary, and it's impractical for a country to keep the award like it's impractical for the film to possess one. The director has his name on it and gets to keep it, hence it's partly his, too. To dismiss the addition of the director is to ignore why the rule was changed in the first place. Owynhart 21:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If we want to go on a technicality, Bong wasn't nominated for Best Picture because he didn't produce it. He technically only won two. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

He did produce it, but for whatever reason it's not in the infobox. Owynhart 20:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Translation from another language version Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedians, To enrich the contents, I would translate the article from Korean Wikipedia with references. Please check the details of reference via translation.

• * Background of Parasite

Bong Joon-ho hoped that our lives would be good, but he wanted to express the sadness, anxiety, and fear that come from reality of life via the movie:Parasite. Bong Joon-ho has wanted to be a film director since he was 14 years old. Regarding the comment from the film director Martin Scorsese "The most personal is the most creative." Bong announced that the saying was always contained in the chest. It was appreciated by Martin Scorsese and the audience at the 92nd Academy Awards.

The sources can be included, but the writing has to improve. Owynhart 05:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read the references a few times, and clarified the sentences below. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Background of Parasite

Director Bong Joon-ho hoped that he would live a comfortable life, however he was disappointed several times in reality. He wanted to express the sadness, anxiety, and deep fear that come from reality of life via his movie: Parasite. 

life and Career of Bong Joon-ho

Main article: Bong Joon-ho

Bong Joon-ho has wanted to be a film director since he was 14 years old. During the 92nd Academy Awards,   Bong mentioned in his speech that the statement from the film director Martin Scorsese which was "The most personal is the most creative." inspired him a lot. Martin Scorsese was one of the audience at the 92nd Academy Awards and he along with the audience showed appreciation for this.   Bong Joon-ho's father, deceased Bong Sang-kyun, is a first-generation graphic designer who was a former professor of art at Yeungnam University and the head of the art department at the National Film Institute. When Bong Joon-ho was young, he was able to see his father always drawing. Naturally, Bong Joon-ho wo imitated his father, has had the opportunity to practice comic and story-boarding since the age of five, including drawing and arranging cartoon shots. Professor Bongsan Kyun retired from Seoul Institute of Technology as a professor of design in 2007 and passed away in 2017. Director Bong Joon-ho suffered severe hardships for more than 10 years while working on film production. As one of the not famous directors, he received a meager salary of 1900 dollars per year(US$3800 = 4,500,000 won per two year).  It was hard to make a living, so he barely made enough to buy rice so he had to borrow rice from his university's alumni. Currently, Bong Joon-ho's son, Bong Hyo-min, is also a film director.

Plan for touristic set of parasite

South Korea local Government (Goyang City) plans to restore the Goyang Aqua Special Shooting Studio set, where the film parasite was produced, and use it as a parasite movie experience tourism facility. In addition, Goyang city has announced that they will invest 150 million dollars in the development of the Goyang Film Culture Complex by 2026 to accommodate film experience tourism facilities, additional indoor studios, outdoor set production facilities, inter-Korean video content centers, image research and development companies. However, there are criticisms about commercialization of development of tourist destinations to poverty in South Korea without improvement of the penurity regarding parasite filming course events by Seoul Tourism Organization such as global fam trip with film experts.

The next of Movie Parasite 

The remake of Parasite as a semi- drama was confirmed as the next work of the film 'Parasite', which won both in the Cannes Film Festival and Oscar Film Festival. There is a rumor that Mark Ruffalo and Katharine Matilda (Tilda Swinton) will be the main character in his next work. On the other hand, there are opinions saying that it is necessary to maintain the cast of coloured people.

Reaction part Trump again complains about 'Parasite' winning best picture Oscar https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/02/398_283875.html

References

Regarding Note 1

Note 1 states that The Artist was the first non-American film to win the Best Picture Oscar. I can think of at least three British films to have done so earlier; those are Hamlet (won in 1949), The Bridge on the River Kwai (won in 1958) and Lawrence of Arabia (won in 1963). Hamlet's Wikipedia page states that it was the first non-American film to win the award, but does not provide a citation that supports this claim. I don't want to edit this page as of yet, since I am not sure that Hamlet was indeed the first, but if anyone can ascertain that, they should change Note 1 to reflect that. LunaticLarry (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t say The Artist is the first non-American film. Owynhart 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oscar campaign

Shouldn't there be a section discussing how the film's Oscar campaign was orchestrated? I'm still amazed by the news, especially the film's winning in the Best Picture category (a first time for a non-English-language film), but it wouldn't be possible without making some buzzes. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source? I'm searching and seeing nothing from any RS (forum theories yes, but that's not reliable). --Masem (t) 21:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Here are what I could find so far:

• https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190822008700315
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/2020-oscars-south-korea-selects-parasite-international-feature-film-category-1233767
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/04/parasite-has-already-disrupted-film-industry-will-it-disrupt-oscars-too/
• https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200123003200315
• https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-02-10/parasite-oscars-are-a-huge-win-for-neon-why-the-scrappy-indie-bet-on-bong-joon-ho (Paywalled)
• https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-theatrical-release-neon-elissa-federoff-1202211250/
• https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/bong-joon-ho-oscars-parasite-pr-campaign-1202210832/
• https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200219005751315

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, reading these "orchestrated" is far too strong a word. First, there is reason to discuss how from the first two that Korean Film Council put Parasite for Best International Picture, which is completely fair and simply how the category works - a non-USian film board select the film(s) is wants to be considered in the shortlist for the Oscars, and Korea selected Parasite for obvious reasons, but that only is covering the Best Interntaional Film.

For the reason, we're talking a standard PR campaign that all Oscar-potential films are going to have to try to sway the Academy voters, particularly after the shortlist comes out. This is like campaign ads. It is not like Academy voters were paid for votes, or that backroom deals were made to have Parasite take the top prizes. Just that a good PR firm saw the film's potential at Cannes, got the onboard early, and did a good job to get word of mouth about the film. Other PR firms did that for the other films in Best Picture, etc. no question, so its standard practice at this point, and not worth inclusion. --Masem (t) 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I see. Thank you for the comment. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

German family or Swiss family

The subtitles say that a German family has moved in. But the magnets on the fridge are all Swiss: Swiss flag, flag of Bern, Lucerne, etc. It should be a Swiss family. Is that a mistake in the subtitles or does he say it in Korean like that? --2A04:EE41:3:F079:98B5:6BE2:4F71:1797 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we just shouldn't specify the nationality. For all we know those could be magnets they got while travelling, but I know the subtitles were purposely adjusted in some areas in order for English audiences to understand several references (i.e. referencing Oxford (or Harvard) instead of a Korean University). Long story short, I'd say we just say "a family" moved in, rather than saying the nationality. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is what Ki-taek says in his message:

Original: 근데 독일 애들이라고 소시지랑 맥주만 먹는 건 아니던데.
Subtitles: It turns out Germans eat more than just sausage and beer.

독일 is Germany. So this is not a mistake or adjustment in the subtitles – he says it in Korean like that. --184.254.208.101 (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Could be an intentional mistake by the character, a mistake by the production (unlikely) or the intent is that they are German but have some personal ties to or affection for Switzerland so they'd have a magnet like that. This is a bit over-detailed for non-speaking offscreen characters.

I support leaving their nationality unmentioned as QueerFilmNerd suggested.--occono (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump Comments

This needs to be added.

• Trump not happy about Parasite film
• Trump mocks Oscar win for Parasite: 'What the hell was that about?' – video
• Donald Trump mocks Oscar-winning South Korean film Parasite

He then questions where have films like Gone with the Wind gone? A film that has been accused of glorifying slavery.

You can't make this stuff. 81.141.61.160 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

At the moment Trumps comments have zero influence on the film. There is no need to include. --Masem (t) 14:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There currently isn't a section for this kind of stuff. It might belong to Trivia. Owynhart 19:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Reception"? "Cultural impact"? BlackholeWA (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere, it doesn't have a place on the page. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

At least at this stage. WP is not a newspaper and we consider enduring coverage of a topic. If Trump's comments lead to something of a longer term issue around the film then maybe we can include something but we'll need to consider what the situation is. Right now, that story's fallen off so I doubt we're going to have to worry about it. --Masem (t) 05:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had added a short sentence about Trump's comments, but it was removed by Masem, and on reflection, I think it's fair to say that the comments aren't pertinent enough to the film to warrant inclusion in the article (after all, it's pretty clear Trump hasn't seen it). I put it into 92nd_Academy_Awards in a new "reaction" section instead, which I think is a better fit. Sdkb (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But again, at this point, Trump's comment on the film and the reaction to that is trivia and has no notable impact. Just because its reported in the news does not mean we need to include it. It has had seemingly no effect on the film or on Trump or on anything else at this point. --Masem (t) 14:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The president of the united states making controversial comments on a best picture winner, the first ever in a foreign language, and attracting media attention for this in the US and Korea is absolutely significant to mention. It's not trivia because it is a very prominent and important person. Just a single sentence may be enough, but you can't find many less trivial people to make comment on the film.--occono (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
      • It feels a bit U.S.-centric. Like, at this point, I don't think we mention the reaction of any other single person to the film outside of critics. If Angela Merkel praises the film, would we also mention that? Or President Moon (who probably already has)? Or are we only mentioning people who reacted to it negatively since that's splashier? I'm satisfied so long as it remains at 92nd Academy Awards where it's more relevant than it is here. Sdkb (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
        • The Academy Awards are US-centric, with until now a Best International Picture award that was often a footnote in the media, and any page about a movie mentions the Oscars if it has them. This one is the first to win best picture in a foreign language. Sometimes the US is especially important depending on the context and this is one of those times. In my opinion.--occono (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

For the users who believe that media coverage = significance, or that every news story deserves a mention on an encyclopedia, note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Therefore not every Trump comment, which undoubtedly will receive some sort of coverage these days by desperate news outlets looking for a story, needs to be mentioned, least of all an off-handed comment at a Trump rally that has little political or cultural impact. Owynhart 19:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Orchestration

Sources I found suggest that a Hungarian firm was involved in the orchestration of the film's scores. is it worth a mention?

• https://hirado.hu/kultura-eletmod/mozi/cikk/2020/02/11/magyar-zenesz-is-hozzajarult-az-oscar-dijas-eloskodok-sikerehez (in Hungarian)
• https://index.hu/kultur/zene/2020/02/11/sapszon_balint_elek_norbert_budapest_scoring_eloskodok_zene/ (in Hungarian)
• https://hungarytoday.hu/oscar-winning-parasite-music-recorded-with-hungarian-contributors/

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this one. Those two composers were not credited in the Cannes press kit. I'm inclined to not include them. Owynhart 07:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations

If this information is worth adding, please use these sources ([1] and [2]). --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792: Thank you for bringing the information regarding this and I have added it. Its controversial and I tried my best to maintain neutral point of view in adding this information. Can you just check it out. The information which I added to the article is given below. Abishe (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(The producer TL Thennappan threatened to take legal action and to sue against the producers of the film Parasite insisting that the Oscar award winning film completely inspired based on the plot of the 1999 Indian Tamil-language drama film Minsara Kanna. Some film critics also accepted that the claim by TL Thennapan was true and it was reported that Thennappan issued an intimation mail to the producers of Parasite regarding the allegations related to plagiarism.)

Not that this shouldn't be included, but I'm not sure where it should be placed. Usuaally, any legal issues for a work typically fall after reception, before legacy. but it could go after legacy too. Where it has been put - in the middle of production and now in the middle of release makes no sense. --Masem (t) 21:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly, I haven't looked into this topic or seen Minsara Kanna, so it's possible it'll get more attention going forward, but for now, this hasn't been getting much media attention and comes across as a less-well-known director using some resemblances to try to grab some of the spotlight currently on Parasite. If my instinctual interpretation is accurate, I think we may want to give it less weight. Sdkb (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that no one else has covered it (mind you, searching in English) save for a few Indian newspapers does suggest this may be undue at this time, but I would see if we still have a lack of coverage in a week or so and then remove, with no opposition if legal action does occur to re-include it. --Masem (t) 07:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Given that it doesn't seem to have gotten traction, I pared it down to a sentence. Even that might be too much per WP:NOTNEWS. Sdkb (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Cast lists should contain details of character motivations

@50.80.21.145: had removed some information saying it was "Completely irrelevant in this section". This information explains details about the characters and their motivations.

I have restored the information and told the anonymous user that I disagree that it is irrelevant.

I disagree with the assertion that the peach allergy creation is irrelevant to the cast section as it explains why director Bong created the aspect of the character. (A viewer would understand that the peach allergy is used to smear Moon-gwang to get her fired and later as a way of attacking her) Therefore I restored it. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Morningstar1814: Hi! Re: The removal of Moon Gwang's peach allergy creation info and Ki Woo's lack of vigor, its not unimportant trivia. Readers of Wikipedia articles expect detailed information regarding creation and conception of fictional characters (how and why the creator wrote the character) and also exploring specifics of each character. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The information is not bad -- but when it is limited to less than half of the main characters, it looks really out of place. Contrast to the cast list of Inception, where more than half the characters (but not all) have some type of motivation or casting detail so that as a whole they don't feel out of place. Without more (and not that there can't be more) , these should fall in writing or casting section. --Masem (t) 02:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I could add the info to the writing section as you stated! I'll be happy to see if there's further info/commentary on other characters, and such may be made available in future news articles, interviews, and/or academic journal articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

ON Set

I assume that when the phrase on set is used in this article it means in a studio, since constructiong a set on a set does not make sense. ButI'm unwilling to edit this without knowing for sure.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ki-Woo

@Theironminer: Hi! Re: this edit

The context for Ki-Woo's bit is that it explains why this crafty and clever individual nonetheless failed to achieve success in the university examinations, and that he passes his insight/wisdom to the girl he's tutoring.

I understand that in writing a great article there needs to be a context/place for this content. My position is that, and that other editors should accept incomplete information for the time being as that is how Wikipedia articles are built.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Themes and Interpretations

This section is very poorly written with too much information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.160.166 (talk)

Elaborate? What is poorly written and what do you want changed? QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the Best Films of all Time?

I see no specific mention of Parasite being considered a "Best Film of all Time" in the main article, as the lede claims. Unless I'm overthinking this, and the citations of one of "the Best Films of the 2010's" qualifies it for the bigger honor. Inspector Semenych (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of the cast order under the cast section?

I reordered it but I was wondering if anyone had any issues with it. What are your thoughts?Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't The Last Emperor the first foreign film to win Best Picture?

Wasn't The Last Emperor the first foreign film to win Best Picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.173.128 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

According to this, "Past best picture winners The Last Emperor (1988) and Slumdog Millionaire (2009) both had large chunks of their dialogue in a foreign language, but they were also both to varying degrees products of the Hollywood system. The Artist (2012) was French but largely mute, and it swore firm allegiance to Tinseltown. Parasite – with which Bong Joon-ho returned to South Korea after two English-language films – is a pure outsider to the American studio cabal." Hope that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added that to the footnote to the lede with that source. --Masem (t) 16:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This is one of the examples where WP:NOTAVOTE is relevant. On a simple numerical basis, not moving has a clear numerical advantage (about 75% of the responses). However, nearly all of the comments in opposition to the move are, in effect, seeking to relitigate or otherwise set aside the 2019 partial disambiguation RfC. A RM discussion is not the place for that; if editors feel so emotive about partial disambiguation, then they are welcome to open a new RfC at WT:AT or WT:D.

This is basically another Thriller-type RM – closed by myself – and I am going to apply the same test here as I did there: is there a consensus that the 2019 film Parasite is the primary topic for all films called Parasite?. Again, the answer is clearly yes; as Station1 has shown, the page views for this article dwarf the views for the other relevant topics. Nobody has sought to argue that, instead trying to disapply an editing guideline locally. Again, this is not the place for that. Like it or not, but Wikipedia guidelines say that partial disambiguations are allowed for primary topics that pass a heightened test, and nobody has argued that Parasite doesn't pass that relevant test. Sceptre (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

To further clarify the close: there is a common assertion in this discussion that there can only be one primary topic for one article title. This isn’t what the PDAB RfC consensus was. And, intuitively, the conclusion from that RfC makes sense; if you ask someone “have you seen Parasite?”, then they (unless they’re a huge Demi Moore fan) mean this film; on the other hand, asking “have you seen Crash?”, one could easily ask “do you mean the car crash sex film or the Oscar winner?”. Whether the heightened threshold for specific primality in these cases is met is as much of a Potter Stewart test as whether the base threshold for general primality is met, but, like I said above, there is an overwhelming argument that it is met, taken out for dinner, and ended up with a nice walk on the beach in this case. Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Parasite (2019 film) → Parasite (film) – This discussion is a continuation of the WP:RFD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Parasite (film) for the redirect Parasite (film); the discussion was closed on procedural grounds since multiple participants saw the request as a move request instead of a redirect discussion. In the aforementioned discussion, the following rationale was presented by King of Hearts:

Parasite (2019 film) is a Thriller (album)-level primary topic for this WP:PDAB, receiving over 99% of pageviews for all films called "Parasite" (including Parasite (1982 film) and The Parasite (1925 film)). Recentism isn't really an issue as the 2019 film is genuinely much more important, having won the Palme d'Or and 4 Academy awards including Best Picture. Retarget.

...I note this page had previously been discussed for moving in February 2020, and the discussion can be found at Talk:Parasite (2019 film)/Archive 1#Requested move 10 February 2020. For the record, I am neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Narky Blert, Seventyfiveyears, and Shhhnotsoloud: Pinging participants of the RfD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I feel this is premature, similar to when the question of making Avatar the film the primary topic over Avatar the spiritual idea. I realize this is less of a impact , but I'd still say its the type of discussion to wait for a year or so more to see if this film still is considered the principle film target. Otherwise, it still requires one extra click for the reader searching for it to be find. --Masem (t) 19:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • To add I think I have to oppose on the basis this adds no gain to a user searching for this film. The current Parasite (about the biological topic) will never be displaced as the common term, so this article will always require disambiguation title, and while it likely will remain the most common title for the film, the fact we have to disambiguate it gives no gain; a user will still likely end up at Parasite (disambiguation) if searching for this. The only thing that should be done (and which already is done) is to hatnote this film as a link at the top of Parasite given how popular it is. --Masem (t) 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The entire purpose of disambiguation is to effectively disambiguate one page from another, which this doesn't do. If having this at the base name was an option it would be one thing (I don't think anyone would argue this is the primary topic for Parasite alone), but otherwise being the most significant among other disambiguated topics doesn't mean the disambiguation should be incomplete. That being said, I see a benefit to directing the proposed title to this page, since it is clearly the intended target for most readers and would be the most helpful for them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "I still don't see any upside to partial disambiguation. It's still disambiguation... just more ambiguous. Obviously people feel differently, but in my view, it seems a bit self-defeating. I'll probably go to my grave regretting my failure to oppose that Thriller move." I wrote this last May about Melodrama (Lorde album), and it remains true here. I wouldn't mind another look at the Thriller page, but I get that ~10 RMs or however many is probably overkill. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

*Support per nomination above. Their are many films that named as "Parasite" in years before this 2019 film. In Google search, "Parasite (film)" are most likely refers to 2019 film unless their search disambiguated year of film that being released before 2019 so it is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I not involved in February RM discussion but i think this film clearly as primary film to Parasite. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:INCDAB. Partial disambiguation is nearly always a bad idea, and the currently popular topic is also rather WP:RECENT. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per overwhelming pageviews. All WP:primary topic titles are by definition incomplete disambiguation; otherwise we'd have parenthetically qualified titles whenever more than one topic might have identical titles. Incomplete disambiguation is completed by use of hatnotes, and dab pages where necessary. Note that as a redirect Parasite (film) gets 17 views per day, virtually all of whom want the 2019 film and not a dab page. It's for those 17 that a move will be beneficial. Station1 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Incomplete disambiguation is titles that have a qualifier that is ambiguous not base names even if they are ambiguous. Let it Be (song) and Higham, Suffolk are incomplete disambiguaion while Smile(s) and Halstead are base names. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per the pageviews shown by Station1. I would've said it's too son, but the difference is overwhelming. El Millo (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per BarrelProof. St3095 ^(?) 06:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. There are other films with this title. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But other films that you refer with same name (1925 and 1982 films) are not notable than 2019 film even with different genres. The similar name film in 1982 played by Demi Moore is actually a horror film. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

All films titled Parasite are all secondary topics and need to be disambiguated from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am much more amenable to an incompletely disambiguated redirect than an incompletely disambiguated title, as I explained in my RfD nomination. (Note that both are allowed, per WP:INCDAB.) On the one hand, this is clearly the primary topic among films called Parasite, but on the other hand if we're going to disambiguate a title at all, we might as well do so unambiguously. So I don't really support or oppose this proposal, unlike my strong support for my preferred approach (a primary redirect). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: If this page is moved as proposed, an option afterwards could be to propose a "Parasite (film) → Parasite (2019 film)" move afterwards. From my understanding from the RfD, the baseline claim is that the title with the "(film)" disambiguator should represent the subject of this article, whether by renaming the article or retargeting the redirect here. In my experiences, such a baseline claim is better initiated and advertised as a move request since they tend to garner more input since a bot advertises the discussion on many more pages than what traditionally happens with an RfD discussion. (Considering that the article itself is tagged during an ongoing move discussion, those who read or watch the article itself are likely to participate.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because the only primary topic here is parasite. The primary topic is completely singular. Any topic that needs to be disambiguated is automatically secondary. The 2019 film Parasite is secondary, no matter what. If there are other films also called Parasite, they all need to be disambiguated from each other. Wikipedia does not deal with hierarchies, saying this topic is the most important, that topic is the second most important, this topic is the third... among a set of topics, there can only be one primary (if there is even one at all), and we already know what that is here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment WP:INCDAB: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying one is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. In those cases in which a partially disambiguated title has a clear primary topic, it should either be the title of the article for that topic or redirect to it. Don't treat this RfC as if it couldn't happen. This case may not meet the threshold in your opinion, but saying something like There are other films with this title isn't enough to justify a !vote. El Millo (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is when used with WP:NCF, or to be more exact, the WP:PRIMARYFILM part of WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Erik. This is one of many secondary topics. Scribolt (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly per Erik. kennethaw88 • talk 23:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLE; the album by Mr Jackson is a case of disruptive WP:IAR/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that continues to waste time on other article discussions such as here. No. There are no sub-primaries. (Would invite new IP editor to familiarise themselves with WP titling policy and register an account). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You know that is a blatant lie. -- Calidum 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - intentional introduction of ambiguity is antithetical to the intent behind our titling policies. PDAB seems to exist only to satisfy fans, not the long-term interests of the project, and seems to generate far too many unnecessary discussions such as this one. -- Netoholic @ 10:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. MapReader (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No partial disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Partial disambiguation is allowed according to a previous RFC (In fact, continued ignorance of this is likely a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem). This is clearly the primary topic for all movies named "Parasite" -- Calidum 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support as indicated indirectly by the nom with the Thriller (album) example, and more directly by Facu-el Millo, Calidum and others, Erik and all “per Erik” opposers are wrong, their Oppose positions have no basis in policy, and their !votes need to be unweighted accordingly. Yes, primary topic for a partial dab needs to meet a higher threshold but that’s clearly met here, by overwhelming page views and long-term significance due to the Best Picture award. —В²C ☎ 19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's all false. Thriller (album) is inherently ambiguous and is simply grandfathered in because of editors thinking that "Thriller (album)" means anything outside of Wikipedia. Nobody but experienced editors will actually type that in search queries. There is no primary topic for thriller, so all topics called that are secondary topics. They should be disambiguated from each other. There is no reason to look at a list of shared topics on a disambiguation page and say, this one isn't the primary topic, but we should make it more ambiguous so it can be between primary and secondary. Why would you support that? If you think the album Thriller is the primary topic, then start a RM discussion to move it to Thriller. Otherwise, it's not the primary topic and should be disambiguated. It never needed to be more complicated than that, especially when determining a primary topic is a process in itself. Why do we need to determine between-primary-and-secondary topics? Keep it simple, stupid. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  So you're against Wikipedia:PDAB, Erik? El Millo (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's an information page that seems more like an essay in pushing for more ambiguity and more "exceptions". Editors should not reference their Wikipedia-navigating experience to assume that the average reader will type in precisely the title and the disambiguation term. They're more likely to type something like parasite movie, and that's a red link (at this time). The disambiguation terms are simply sorting mechanisms because of how Wikipedia names its articles and links to them. The design could have been different in some other way, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is not detrimental to have this level of detail for the average reader, and it is unnecessary to introduce ambiguity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Your opinion is shared by a few others but is contrary to community consensus established at WP:INCDAB and exemplified repeatedly at WP:PDAB#List of partially disambiguated article titles. Please stop expressing your minority opinion as if it is consensus. It’s not. —-В²C ☎ 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This isn’t about Parasite; it is about Parasite (film). Being a non-primary topic of a base name, like Thriller or Parasite, does not disqualify a topic from being primary for a partially disambiguated (PDAB) title, like Thriller (album) or Parasite (film). The PRIMARYTOPIC for Thriller (album) is the Michael Jackson album. The PRIMARYTOPIC for Parasite (film) is this Academy Award best picture winner. It’s the same logic as for any PRIMARYTOPIC case. There is no question that if not for the other film uses of Parasite, Parasite (film) would be the title of this article. But ambiguity with other uses alone does not necessarily disqualify a PDAB from being an article title (or PRIMARYREDIRECT for that matter). If page views or long-term significance clearly show a use is primary for a PDAB, then the article about that topic should be at that PDAB title. But this is all explained at WP:PDAB and WP:INCDAB. See in particular the many examples listed at WP:PDAB#List of partially disambiguated article titles. Your misguided statements contrary to policy and conventions are not helpful. -—В²C ☎ 20:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parasite (2019 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A very good article, but several issues need to be addressed and corrected in order for it to get promoted. The sections with issues are listed bellow.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

References from no. 137 to 144 all have unformatted, "raw" url links. Sources no. 95, 96 as well. This needs to be properly formatted, like the rest of the references.

• References have been reformatted. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Filming

"The director of photography for the film is Hong Kyung-pyo." No source at the end of this paragraph.

• Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Music

"...the romanisation of names and nouns used are slightly different from those seen in the official English subtitles as translated by Darcy Paquet." The same issue, no source at the end of this paragraph.

• Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Accolades

"being the third film to win both grand prizes after the former and The Lost Weekend." Again, no source at the end of this paragraph.

• Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

This section just quotes the reviews verbatim. Quote after quote after quote. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This needs to be summarized and editorized, with the examples being The Thing, Ghostbusters II and others.

• @3E1I5S8B9RF7: I have compacted the information presented in the section and have paraphrased a few quotes, which I think is sufficient enough to count as completed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Promoting the article, since the issues have been addressed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This sentence is clunky and belongs in the Reception Section

"The film was considered by many critics to be the best film of 2019 as well as one of the best films of the 21st century, and is the 46th highest-rated film of all-time on Metacritic." The first part is fine but the second part about metacritic just makes the article sound like it was written by a bunch of amateurs. Can we fix this???WikiHelper200 (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There's zero need to mention Metacritic in the lede, given that it's 46th down the list, which is not a significant placement --Masem (t) 01:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Anticaptialism?

Who put this article in this category and why? The article not once mentions anything (backed up with sources) about anticaptialism. Xia ^{talk to me} 21:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.139.85.169 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Namune9. Peer reviewers: Keneeso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baeksusan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)