Talk:Split (2016 American film)

Billy_Milligan

Any relation to this article I wonder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcshua (talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary

I think it's a spoiler to say in the summary that the movie is a thematic sequel to Unbreakable. As far as I know, this is not known until the end of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.133.102 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If someone doesn't want to read spoilers, they need to just keep away from the page. All film pages list the plot details, and so therefor including the fact that the movie is a sequel to Unbreakable, is just information regarding the fact that it's a part of the series being developed by M. Night Shyamalan.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's really not a fair statement, since it's not merely the presence of the film in the Unbreakable continuity, which can be stated by itself without spoiling much, but the appearance of a particular character at the end of the movie. Additionally, users researching a film before seeing it will avoid the Plot summary to avoid being spoiled, but it's completely reasonable for them to not expect a spoiler right in the description of the film. To say otherwise is intentionally antagonistic to people who want to avoid spoilers but still be able to find out basic information about a film, such as who directed it, the principal cast, release date, and genre. 2602:304:CE65:99A0:7D54:544C:9AD5:A42C (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the statement "Casey's look of determination implies she is ready to tell the police about her uncle's abusive behavior," I would like to see more acknowledgement that this is one interpretation and is completely speculative. I did not at all get that interpretation from the film, and I found Casey's passivity throughout the film to be one of its most disturbing elements. Anyone can interpret as they like, but let's acknowledge that we cannot "know" what is to be implied by a silent, impassive facial expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.227.133 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Users 2602:304:CE65:99A0:7D54:544C:9AD5:A42C, and 108.75.133.102 -- again it is not a spoiler to state that the film is a thematic sequel to Unbreakable but in fact common-knowledge at this stage. It does not reveal how the film is connected to Unbreakable, but acknowledges it. It needs to be stated as such otherwise every film on every page would have to do away with 'spoilers' in their summary sections. Not going to happen.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's spoiler policy, deleting lede-relevant information from the opening of the entry for this reason is not appropriate. That the film is a sequel and that a third film is in the works should not be buried in the article; I have now re-added it. Justifying deletion of such significant information from the lede requires a better argument than "but it's a spoiler." Grandpallama (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Regarding stating the film's genre in the opening sentence of the lead section, we need to be mindful of not mashing up genres where such a grouping does not exist in any reliable sources. WP:FILMLEAD says to identify "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". I cut down from "psychological horror thriller film" to "thriller film" because "psychological thriller horror" was a mash-up, and many sources stated that it is a thriller (or suspense thriller, which is synonymous). OWSLAjosh666 has changed it to "psychological horror film" and has referenced it. I am okay with this, but when the film comes out, we should be open to any shifts in labeling, especially since most current sources tend to be based on promotional materials rather than independent assessments. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also argue that the film needs to list 'supervillain' somewhere in the opening paragraph. If it's not listed in the genre, it should at least mention the fact somewhere in the introductory paragraph, as M. Night Shyamalan has stated that the film's plot twist turns the movie into a 'supervillain origin story', as the antithesis to Unbreakable. This and the fact that he has plans for a third movie which will feature the two film's main characters is validation for something along the lines of: "M. Night Shyamalan called the film a supervillain origin story, following the movie's theatrical release", and then cite the reference. I have done this twice already, and the edits have been reversed so I'm raising the argument here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this can be classified as a "horror" movie, I'd say it's a "thriller". I am certainly no expert on this topic, but I'd say that all of the horror movies that I've seen so far share some kind of, well, "horror-ness", as opposed to this one. I can't really explain my claims but I'd hope someone with better knowledge of the topic might rightfully reconsider the movie genre in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6C:CE6A:5990:7DAC:2D3D:8F50:1D3 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I would second a proposition to classify this film as a 'psychological thriller' for several reasons. Although there is some overlap with the psychological horror genre, I personally feel as though psychological thrillers tend to be more thought provoking, more about a race against time and more tense than scary (this film is all three of these) as opposed to psychological horror films which tend to be more to do with making the audience scared and have a more predictable doom (which this film doesn't do too much). Additionally, MNS himself refers to this film as a thriller as well as a horror film, and in the same interview discusses taking inspiration for Split from "a French film called Cache" which he describes as "a great psychological thriller". . Finally, not only does the home page for the website of the film have a big poster calling the movie "An original psychological thriller", Time Magazine and Rolling Stone also refer to it as such. . If anything it's a horror/thriller, although I believe it leans more towards being a thriller. M L Harris (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Do we want full protect this for a month

Until the vandalism, BFE, and junk edits blow over? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

Please change the film's genre from psychological horror to psychological thriller as it is specified both in movie posters and on the movie's website: http://www.splitmovie.com/

Thank you M L Harris (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Even though it was changed momentarily, OWSLAjosh666 has changed it back without giving a reason or sources to back up his argument.

I've changed it back. There is a great ref with a quote from the director supporting "horror", but some quick googling suggests "thriller" is far more common. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Heavily implied."

I've seen the movie twice, the wife has seen it three times and there is no part of the film that 'heavily implies' that the two girls in the film are the two girls who put Barry's hands on their jubblies. I suggest we remove that until there's a citation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.129.25 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

agreed. removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.100.161 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

New Article: Kevin Wendell Crumb

Would a new Article about Kevin Wendell Crumb and the other 24 prominent personalities, like the article on David Dunn. For more background and list of personalities and link to Unbreakable.--2001:56A:F3D0:1A00:3878:C78D:8DF2:82BD (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sequel to Unbreakable

The writer/director has multiple times called the film a sequel to Unbreakable. Meanwhile the editors on this website continue to delete information flippantly. The information stating that it is such is no longer in the intro. What is the reasoning for that, I wonder? The writer/director has also stated that the film is a supervillain origin story. Why are these things being deleted, especially without a consensus of any kind?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be there, and repeated deletions are inappropriate without justification. I have re-added it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Its now pretty clear this is the second part of a trilogy, and there is indeed a Wikipedia page for the trilogy, referred to as either the Eastrail 177 trilogy or the Unbreakable series

"See Also" section

Under the "See Also" section, it links to the page "List of films featuring diabetes." This link should not be included, since this film does not feature diabetes.

137.125.142.65 (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Release date

Do we really use the date the film was shown at a film festival as the release date? I don't think I recall seeing that done in other movie articles. Especially considering a viewing at a film festival really isn't when a film is released to the public (same with not counting date of testing audiences and critic previews). — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No involvement from Touchstone Pictures

This is purely a Universal production, with no involvement from Touchstone Pictures (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures).

Okay...and? That's exactly what the article states, with no mention of Touchstone. Grandpallama (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mental Health Community section

While the topic of the reception by the "mental health community" does seem relevant to include, I have some issues with how it's currently written. First of all, capitalizing "Mental Health Community" seems to imply the existence of a pretty official, widely recognized, and cohesive community where I'm not sure one exists. At least not in the same way as the Evangelical Christian community or queer women of color, categories that you read and think "oh, ok, I know who that is." Is the mental health community made up of people with mental illnesses, or people who advocate for people with mental illnesses, people who seek cures, people who seek acceptance, etc.? How can we clarify who this category is talking about right off the bat? Secondly, the sources aren't all introduced in ways that show the notability of who's talking. While I was able to find on Google that Amelia Joubert is a mental health advocate, she's introduced basically as "a teenager with DID" - not a voice qualified to represent this film's reception in the context of an encyclopedic article. Third, the tone of the whole section is not very encyclopedic, and could benefit from more citations. I definitely didn't want to delete any of the content because the contribution looks to be very much in good faith, by a relatively new user making meaningful additions. I just think the final product could be tightened up a lot. Jojopeanut (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)