Talk:The Menu (2022 film)

Billing block

As the film is still upcoming and features an ensemble cast, a list of actors should be omitted from the infobox until a billing block appears. Please note ensemble films such as Knives Out 2 and Untitled Wes Anderson film. Parts of the ensemble are already listed in the lead and are repeated in #Cast. Including a list of actors but not adding others becomes picking and choosing and can lead to the infobox becoming crowded. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Picking and choosing is dictating who goes in and where as a means of preference, not by means of looking to avoid just tossing every name in when, as you saw at Wonka. And honestly you practiced this by placing Hoult higher than when he was announced but I saw your point about his being noted as a main lead. I can see the point when it comes to the Wes Anderson film because he has notoriously massive casts and it’s hard to discern how much of a role they will serve for the film. My rule of thumb is until a billing block forms that 10 should be the max number of names added in upon new cast announcements. Knives Out 2 only has only 10 names total anyway so I don’t see the concern about crowding. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Deadline article released today said the five actors were also part of the ensemble. So, should they be listed too? Leaving them out because of a personal rule does not make sense. Repeating the same list in the infobox, lead, and #Cast also seems repetitive. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

But like you said you don’t want to crowd the infobox when there’s no set block yet. At the same time we shouldn’t also leave the infobox section empty as a result. It’s a series of rules one has to set for oneself when there’s no given guideline to follow. At Deaths in 2021 we implement a rule of three when it comes to listing a deceased career highlights. It’s not a binding rule, but it’s a handy rule of thumb to use so as to not drown an entry with career highlights. Thats why I use a max 10 rule for infoboxes. It says from me making a personal dictation about “oh, Judith Light is probably a cameo so let’s take her out” situation. Rusted AutoParts 01:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this all academic now, as the film has been released? Or should it be preserved as a glowing example of the negotiation and determination of actor-listing protocols here at WP, where, frankly, many a well-meaning soul such as I (and perhaps—dare I say it?—some of you) has gone to assuage their feelings of not leading quite as significant or influential a life as they may have envisioned and/or preferred? – AndyFielding (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Description of motive

At the end of the movie, describing the only person to survive the evening - "Julian packs the food for her, and he and the staff allow her to leave, in appreciation for her genuine respect for his cooking." I believe this description should be edited to include the possibility that he allowed her to leave because she "played the game", or spoke in restaurant code, in other words. Any way it is described, the reason should be left open for other possibilities unless we know for sure. 137.188.108.201 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but your last sentence sums it up: unless it's unambiguous, it's got to be worded unpresumptuously. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it was removed. I support that decision.

Mike Allen 03:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia movie pages do not usually decline to tell spoilers, example the Crying Game page is honest about the character's gender and sex. So I am surprised that two crucial facts were left out of the Plot summary here. 1. They set up the meaning of the ending very early during the tour, when Elsa specifies how long they age their beef, and then it is belabored for the audience that if the beef if aged the wrong amount of time it can be lethal. Audience members who are mindful of this setup, understand that when she leaves at the end eating the beef burger, that she may in fact be eating toxic beef that will tear her up inside shortly after. This sheds much light on them letting her go, and changes the ending entirely. This needs no additional citing in this article, just a mention of the beef aging details, and a reference back to it at the end. 50.34.191.65 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Dude

I think that's quite a contrived interpretation. My interpretation of that earlier scene was that Elsa was just winding the guests up for asking a stupid question. Realistically, beef that was agreed for too little time is not going to be harmful.

Not saying your interpretation is wrong, but I doubt it's a common one. 2A00:23C8:B713:FD01:E96F:A2EF:3C2B:942A (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I can site that this is not a fringe interpretation : https://screenrant.com/the-menu-chef-slowik-killed-margot-cheeseburger-theory/ 50.34.204.199 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Dude

Tyler's death

It's not clear in the movie if Tyler was ordered to hang himself. All we know is that Slowik whispers something in his ear, and this may not have been an order MrMagical7812 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"The Menu (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Menu (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § The Menu (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr. George Diaz

I understand that the credits show him as a "movie star", but is it really necessary to avoid his given name in the plot summary as well? Cyanurea (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

One reason is simply that it would be confusing to have someone named who isn't listed in the credit list. Also, what would using his name actually add? A name is basically just a label, and 'movie star' serves just as well as a label when no-one else is referred to thus.Sbishop (talk) Sbishop (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Plot details

@Billmckern:: I don't think uncollegial edit summaries help very much, especially since your version is the incorrect one. On this diff...

• The 700 word limit is a rule-of-thumb, not a hard limit. Maybe in a GA or FA, sure, but being accurate is more important for most articles. If someone makes a small addition that tips it over 700 but that improves the article, the proper response if you really feel passionately is to just chop it down yourself. (So did I improve the article? Let's see...)
• The bit on Verrick & COVID-19 is simply incorrect. The three of Verrick's friends are hurt and wounded that Slowik is *betraying* Verrick who did a solid for him. Their line is "he kept you open during COVID." In other words, Verrick supported Hawthorn then by keeping everyone paid rather than closing it. Verrick already owned the restaurant. Slowik's story as well as the newspaper clipping found by Margot make this clear enough.
• The tone in the current summary is wrong. Some of Slowik's complaints are intentionally on the petty side (e.g. George Diaz starred in a movie he didn't like, the Leibrandts didn't pay enough attention; etc.). If you want to pick some other way to communicate that, fine, but it currently comes across as a financial dispute, but the movie couldn't be more clear that isn't the case. Slowik's complaint is that Verrick used his position to request substitutions despite a no substitutions policy, which hurt his artiste heart. He says this as he's ordering him drowned! This is in response to the above issue, too, where Verrick's friends wrongly assume the issue is financial. Now. We don't necessarily need to go into detail here (although the old summary went into some detail; it was just incorrect), but I think the slightly silly vibe of "real restaurant slights blown up into humorous murder" should be preserved.
• The passive wording "is unmasked" suggests Margot herself didn't do it, but that's not true. She doesn't talk about being Erin from Massachusetts in response to Slowik's interrogation, she just volunteers it while eating with the other female diners.
• "Barrel" is a very common word. MOS:OVERLINK cites "everyday words" as examples of things not to link.

I'm happy to work toward a consensus wording that's accurate if you are. But step 1 would be to simply reinstate my edit IMO, perhaps shaving down the word count a little. Happy to hear other suggestions. SnowFire (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Fair. Take a look at the update I just made and see if that gets it done. You're right about Slowik's relationship with Verrick, Erin's unmasking, and no need for overlinking. I made a few conciseness edits to your version to get it below 700 words. It's currently at 684, so you've got some cap space if you think anything else is needed. Billmckern (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The new version does look better, thanks. My one remaining suggestion - I don't get the impression the issue was Verrick involving himself in micromanagement of the restaurant? It sounds like it was Verrick-as-a-diner asking for special treatment & substitutions from the menu, etc. SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I just looked at the script. The relevant passage is -- Bryce: "He kept you open through COVID, you prick! He did that!." Slowik: "Yes he did. And he questioned my menu. He would even request substitutions, despite the fact that THERE ARE NO SUBSTITUTIONS AT HAWTHORN!"

I took questioning the menu to be different from "even" requesting substitutions. That sounded like two different things to me. What do you think?Billmckern (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)