Talk:The Lobster: Difference between revisions

Animal Cruelty

In the opening scene of the film, a woman steps out of a car, walks over to, and shoots a donkey in an open field. From all appearances, this looks like a real shooting of a real animal. I see no reference whatsoever to this scene in either the lede, the plot summary, critical review, or anywhere in the article, for that matter, but as a reader, I was looking for some info on this. Why is this scene not mentioned in the article? 68.10.81.239 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-locals-in-sneem-talk-about-the-filming-of-the-lobster-movie-in-their-region-357086.html

"Dr Malone recalled one early-morning scene when a donkey had to be ‘shot’ outside the hotel and a vet was brought in to anaesthetise it briefly for the scene. But a local landowner, who was oblivious to the steps being taken to protect the animal, approached the crew and shouted: “There’ll be no donkey shot on this farm.”" Mando Salama (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations in lead, "dystopian near-future", and names

Looks like Gomuse17 and I disagree about a few things. Let's figure them out here.

First, citations in the lead are unnecessary. WP:LEADCITE states that "information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source ... editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." This means we do not need to cite claims in the lead - such as the prizes the film won, or who stars in it - as this information is uncontroversial and already cited in the body of the article itself. For example, see the GA article The Interview (2014 film); it does not require citations in the leads as its claims are uncontroversial and properly sourced in the article.

Next: the claim that the film is set in a "dystopian near future". The problem with this is that there is nothing in the film itself to suggest this. The information is cited to a press release, but promotional materials etc do not trump the primary source itself - the movie - and may have been put together by people completely unrelated to the film's production. I understand it's tempting to include information from other sources, but WP:FILMPLOT states: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article."

The same rule applies to the names of characters and locations. To refer to characters and locations with Proper Capitals Like This suggests these are their proper, "correct" names, but nothing in the movie's story suggests this, and in fact most of the characters and locations go unnamed. It's misleading. (Note that how the characters are named in the credits is also not evidence for them having "proper names" in the story itself.) Popcornduff (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

First, the setting adds understanding to the story and, therefore, is relevant and necessary; it is also commonly seen in the lead section of film articles. As for the press document, don't you think the content would have been endorsed by people related to the film before being released worldwide. Besides, trade publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter who had seen the film have stated the film as set in the future - meaning which the info on the setting should be preserved per WP:VERIFY. The same goes for the location and character names in capitals in the press release - it is likely the filmmaker's intention to have it presented that way. Also, i don't see how capitalisation is in any way misleading - an example would be Once (film) which has done the same thing, i.e. words that basically have the same meaning; it's just avoiding lengthy descriptions, and it makes it easier for readers to match the characters to the actors in the cast list when reading the article. Gomuse17 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this defeats the WP:FILMPLOT policy I quoted: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." That goes for character names, too. Popcornduff (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, the setting is supported by the press release, a primary source, and cited in film reviews - that means it is a reliable and accurate info. That said, as it is a one-sentence information, the most appropriate section to include it would be the lead. And then I don't see how following the press release's capitalisation of the names would mean "a differing perspective of the film's events". Gomuse17 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, you're quite right, the press release does qualify as a primary source.

But the bit that I really take issue with is that, because the film contains no suggestion that these are the characters' actual names, or that it is set in a dystopian future, to include these details means the plot summary is not accurately reflecting the film we are describing. I'm not particularly interested in what reliable sources (including even the director or whatever) says about the movie; the movie itself is what we should report. Still, I would like to hear what other editors think about this, because I'm happy to bow to the consensus. Popcornduff (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Gomuse17 is right; the names should be as formatted in the credits; i.e., capitalized. 192.138.59.36 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC) [Woops, I wasn't signed in. WiiWillieWiki 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)]

Referring to 'the hotel' and 'the city' without capitalisation doesn't make any sense, because the reader doesn't know which specific city the "the" refers to. Capitalisation makes it much clearer that these are features of this dystopian world. The removal of a reference to dystopia (future or no) is also unhelpful to the reader. 2001:630:206:4001:20A1:D63F:644F:D62 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, just say "a hotel" and "a nearby city" when you first mention them. This is basic English preposition use, right? I think it's self-evident that this is a dystopia, but I still think specifying that it is a future dystopia when there is nothing in the actual story or movie indicating that is strange, and misleading. Who cares about press releases when they have no apparent bearing on the movie itself?

Surely credits can't be used to "name" characters, because credits, by necessity, have to identify nameless characters one way or another (eg "Man With Hat" or whatever). That doesn't therefore mean those are the characters' names. What's more important, surely, is that these characters have no names specified in the story itself at all. Popcornduff (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Example of another movie article that deals with the naming issue: The Road (2009 film). See the Cast section. Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bringing in the discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_59#Opinions_needed_on_The_Lobster, I was suggesting they be left as lower-case unless they are proper nouns or explicitly named as such. For example, "David and the short-sighted woman conspire to escape and live in the city as a couple." but "David escapes the hotel and joins the Loners in the woods." If a character is referred to by a specific name or title like "Go talk to the Short-Sighted Woman" or "They call me the Short-Sighted Woman", then it can stay in caps. That the credits show Short-Sighted Woman doesn't really matter, as even bit roles like Man 1, Woman 3, would be capitalized, whereas in the prose they could be listed as "A man rushes to the street, followed by three women, the last of whom screams." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)