Talk:About Time (2013 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12345666666666666666666666666666666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.248.185 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

The intro says "the film is scheduled to be released on 1 November 2013.[4]" and the infobox states this: 8 August 2013 (United Kingdom), 1 November 2013 (United States) and on IMDB it says its coming out In September in the UK and in the US on the 8th of November, is there any concrete source to say which British and American dates are correct? Doomsday28 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I found this article http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/31/richard-curtis-about-time-retirement that states it set to release in the UK in August, but a better source will be needed to confirm the UK release date. Doomsday28 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBFC says About Time is released September 4 also the Odeon website says Sept 4. The bbfc is already linked in the article for the runtime. -- 109.77.84.170 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot flaws[edit]

It's all very well adding cited content about critics comments to flaws in the plot, that does not allow for original research determining where and what these flaws are. Besides anything else, it also allows editors to get things wrong; To my recollection Tim never travels forward in time, he only ever travels back, then returns to the present. As with all time travel fiction, you could write an entire thesis on the plot contradictions and anomalies caused by time travel, but neither the film, nor any of the cited sources examine this in any depth. So Wikipedia shouldn't either. And even if sources could be found that did, I'm not sure it's suitable content to enter a discussion about them. It's enough to mention that they are there, without the detail. You don't see Back To The Future picking over its flaws. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research in quoting the rules of temporal engagement as explained to Tim by his father, nor in citing examples of where they are broken. Your recollection is wrong: Tim is travelling backwards and forwards in time throughout the film. Although when Tim travels as a visitor to the past you could argue there is a 'present day' this does no apply on the occasions when he travels backward and starts reliving his life from that point.Tomintoul (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you aren't citing examples where they are broken. You (no-one else) are recalling events where, in your opinion, the plot contradicts itself, by combining and contrasting examples of your interpretation of dialogue and events. If that isn't original research and synthesis then I don't know what is. Please either cite them from reliable sources or remove them.
Not that it matters (as my interpretation is just as irrelevant as yours) what is said/meant is that he cannot travel forward into the future. He can travel forwards back to where he originally left the present, but no further. Otherwise with every trip he made back, he'd have to re-live the entire intervening period all over again, before making it back to the present. That would make for a very long and dull life and be a needless restriction on the plot. Why would Curtis ever write that into the film? It serves absolutely no purpose. Obviously "the future" and "the present" are relative concepts, especially when you can time travel, but as I said, the film doesn't worry about this, and the cited sources aren't specific about it. So neither should Wikipedia be. The very fact that your interpretation differs from mine is precisely why Wikipedia doesn't permit original research from editors. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some examples. As you concede, it is your interpretation that he doesn't travel forward. This section has been worked on by three different editors and has had about 4000 viewings per day without criticism other than yours, so I trust you will seek further consensus before making other changes.Tomintoul (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't get side tracked over concerns about whose interpretation is correct. It doesn't matter. It's still original research. It's a core policy of Wikipedia that it does not contain original research. Adding examples isn't fixing the problem, it's adding to it.
If you can't cite this analysis, it is not optional over whether it remains. It should be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added multiple references and removed the original research label.Tomintoul (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big improvement, but there is still problems about your "rules", which are of your own construction.

You repeat what the first cite (flickfilosopher) says, that "At first it seems that once Tim travels back in time, he has to stay there and live through all those hours and days again in order to get back to where he jumped from…" (My emphasis on "seems".) So this cite doesn't support your "rule" 2. The criticism here should be that the film is not clear about what is occurring, and confuses some of its audience, not that it is breaking a "rule" merely constructed from what seemed to be occurring to you.

And neither cite says anything about the sister time travelling. Not such a big deal with this, but if you are going to mention a breaking of this "rule" it should be cited.

It's perfectly ok for you to cite these sources' criticism as attributed opinion (although they're not exactly mainstream reviewers). e.g. "Flickfilosopher complained that at first it seemed ... " But currently you are using them to support originally researched "rules" that are just interpretations of dialogue and events that the cites admit they are confused about.

I'm not questioning that there aren't any plot holes, just that you are not permitted to construct your own evidence of them, based on your own interpretation of the plot and dialogue. Your sources need to do that for you. Otherwise I could equally modify your "rules" according to my interpretation, that clarify and explain away much of the criticism. Take number 2, for example;

  • 2 You cannot travel forward in time into future you have not yet lived.

Except I can't do that, because it will equally invalid original research, exactly the same as your "rule".

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can find a transcript of the section where Tim's father explains the 'rules'. Note he does actually use the word 'rule' when explaining Rule 3.Tomintoul (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you did, it would be original synthesis. You cannot combine material (Father says this then plot does this) to reach conclusions (therefore plot is flawed). You need a reliable source that does it for you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EO. Please walk me through this in more detail. I don't really understand your point as 'the rules' are referred to in almost every review as per citations and the examples of them being broken are simply extracts of the story. I have added yet another reference BTW.Tomintoul (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, if you insist, on referring to "the rules" as discussed in the cite, but you are going further than that to include specific examples of your own analysis of what is said in the dialogue, and how the subsequent plot (by your analysis), conforms to that. This is original research. You then suggested finding a source for the dialogue, and a reliable source for the plot, and comparing what both say. That is original synthesis. If you want to discuss definitive examples of where there is a plot hole, you need a single source that does all these steps for you. You cannot perform it all yourself or combine bits from multiple sources. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Escape Orbit for trying to help fix up this section. I'd have taken a hatchet to it and slimmed it down into maybe one long paragraph as an extra part of Reception/Critical response noting the considerable amount of criticism received for the plot/writing. When less generous editors come along I expect the section will be removed outright or merged into Reception but maybe some of the work Tomintoul has tried to do can be saved.
No one expect much depth from a Richard Curtis rom-com though anyway. -- 93.107.207.225 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be nit-picking on uncertain details. Most time travelling films have plot holes like this, and none of the sources bother to itemise the details of the holes because such pedantry would bore their readers. This analysis is more of what you would expect of a hard-core science fiction film. In which case maybe we would find some reliable sources worth citing on it. But frankly, as you say, no-one really cares in a Curtis rom-com. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just don't agree. If a film makes a big point about laying down 'the rules', then it should follow them. I have gone to great pains to careful cite many reviews to back this up. It is perfectly reasonable to subject a film called 'About Time' to a detailed analysis of its treatment of time! Tomintoul (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, as has been explained, it is only your interpretation that is determining what "the rules" are and where "the rules" are broken. The cites themselves don't do this. The reviews only mention plot holes and confusion with the time travel in general terms (something that is not unusual in time travel films). I say that some of "the rules" (as you define them) are misunderstandings and are not broken by the plot. The second "rule" in particular is only dialogue explaining why no-one has ever travelled years into the future. Otherwise, why mention it at all? It's fiction, Curtis can give his characters any magical ability he likes. Why would he create a pointless and limiting complication to the time travelling that he would only end up having to contradict? Why do that? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this section going to get cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this section is still a work in progress. Your previous blasé deletion was not helpful. Tomintoul (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest revision by unregistered user reverted as per WP:BRD Tomintoul (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on logic problems and plot holes is almost like saying 1+1=3 because person 'x' said it was. It really is redundant if reviewers thought there were plot holes or logic problems with the rules because there is nothing to suggest their interpretation is correct. Perhaps it is best to explain where this all goes wrong. One must remember that Tim's father is having a colloquial conversation and not stating the premise of his thesis, to interpret the rules literally in such a circumstance is foolish. For example, with rule 1, for time travel to even work, all people must be able to travel backward to previous times (otherwise nobody would exist in the past), only the males of the family are consciously aware of it. Futhermore, the rule should best be interpreted as 'only the males can control said time travel', at a colloquially level this is perhaps the most accurate interpretation. For rule 2, it's even followed with a line where proper interpretation (for the purposes of the film) should have you know that it meant to a time not yet experienced e.g. if the latest date experienced was in 2009, Tim couldn't jump to 2013. Finally, with rule 3, it is clear that Tim went back and undid the change of taking his sister back, most likely by simply going back to said time without her and then immediately jumping to the latest date again. At no point was it stated that he must live through all backward jumps again, so it is clearly a poor assumption made by the reviewers. This is actually a sign of poor inductive reasoning on their behalf rather than an indication of a plothole or logic problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.239.238 (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would further like to add that if the rules are 'frequently' broken, then perhaps it is more likely that one's interpretation of the rules is wrong. To put it in context, someone wrote a screenplay with these rules as the central tenant, then appeared to break them throughout even though the storyline is a direct result of how the rules work. It can be shown, as in the proceeding paragraph, that the rules can be interpreted in a manner that works with the story line. As such it is much more likely that these supposed plotholes are merely misinterpretations and therefore should be removed from the page. This will be done unless a valid counter-argument is provided. Perhaps consider the rules like the laws of the universe in the film, they may not have been expressed clearly which led ta this discussion, but nonetheless they are valid and a proper critical analysis of events that seemingly break them show the rules to still hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.239.238 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If anything, the criticism here should be about the film not being clear enough to satisfy some of its audience. (Which probably is a result of Curtis not really being that bothered enough about time-travel to spell things out.) And this sits well with most of the notable reviewers' opinions. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been a "work in progress" for over three weeks now, and cites for these "rules" are still not forth-coming. Furthermore, the cites supporting the analysis are little better than blogs. Can we now face up to the fact that this is all original research and remove it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have strong views on this, as have I, but we have not reached consensus. The section has been blithely deleted/poorly modified by some, then re-instated by others. I will give it more attention this week. (BTW, another article I have been looking at has been awaiting citations for two years and has still survived the AFD process, so I don't think three weeks is much to complain about!)Tomintoul (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now referenced almost every line. This is probably now the most referenced section on Wiki. There is no original research. I have removed the labels.Tomintoul (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section still contains your interpretation of the dialogue to construct "rules". This is still original research. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "The rules" follows directly from the referenced Kermode quote. Each of these rules is referred to in several of the other multiple references that follow. To say that there is original research here is beyond pedantic! Tomintoul (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added yet another reference that neatly summarises the rules, so please have the good grace to remove the original research label.Tomintoul (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EO, I'm disappointed you haven't had the grace to remove the label you added. I have now done this for you. Almost every line in this section is referenced.Tomintoul (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tomintoul, you are still missing the point. You could reference every word and it still be wrong. If every reviewer says 1+1=3, it doesn't make it true. This entire section is still based on a person's perception of plotholes. Yet I have conclusively shown above how they aren't plotholes at all. I have shown how 1+1=2 yet you persist in saying it's 3 because the reviewers said so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.149.253 (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you EO signed in anonymously, or someone else? Whoever you are, this section is fully referenced and contains no personal opinions (original research) of mine. Your rather egocentric view is a minority personal opinion.Tomintoul (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it egocentric to point out the logical flaws in the reasoning of the reviewers? Your egocentric view is that the majority agreeing on something somehow makes it right. I have changed the title of the section to Perceived Plot Holes because that is what they are. They are not actual plot holes, they are perceived plot holes by the reviewers. The new title more accurately represents the issues people have been having with the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.148.157 (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You, or another anonymous editor, have previously made this change, which was reverted by another editor (not me). The reason for the reversion is clear: the 'Plot Holes' section is a sub-section of 'Reception', which documents critical reviews, so the points are self-evidently the perception of the reviewers. I have therefore reverted your edit again again.Tomintoul (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is most confusing here is that on the page, the subsection "Plot holes" could look like it is a section of its own, rather than a subsection of the Reception section. After all, there is no indentation to indicate it's a subsection, only a slightly smaller heading. When I realized that it was a subsection of Reception it seemed valid. The critics have incorrectly interpreted Tim's father's rules as the absolute truth rather than allowing for his character to have incorrect beliefs about how time travel works and/or be lying while explaining it. This page is correct in reporting that the critics have had this misunderstanding, so no correction is necessary, though perhaps some clarification is possible to prevent further misunderstandings. Is it possible to put a disclaimer at the beginning or end of the subsection that says something like "Note: This section reports on the perceived plot holes of some critics, and does not make claims as to the validity of their points, only that they did make those points". SubJunk (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think the critics are incorrect; I think they are correct. However, that is irrelevant. What is key is that this is an accurate report of the critics' views – which it is.Tomintoul (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reiterating my point that it is irrelevant what our opinions are - and the disclaimer I suggest does not claim that the critics are either correct or incorrect, rather it seeks to make it more clear that the article does not claim one way or the other. SubJunk (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A disclaimer is neither appropriate or necessary. The headings follow the standard Wiki hierarchy and 'Plots holes' is clearly a sub-heading under 'Reception'. Tomintoul (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person to notice that this is only a FICTIONAL film, and as yet time travel back the way, isn't a thing. Given that the people involved aren't temporal physicists, and might not actually KNOW? Does it really spoil the film, per se?2.101.151.107 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]

The film makes a big point about establishing the rules of time travel – then breaks them. Any fictional work that doesn't comply with its own internal logic is always very disappointing. Tomintoul (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section present at all? I haven't seen a "plot holes" section on any other movie wikipedia entry. This seems like a better fit for a youtube video essay, where I regularly enjoy this content, CinemaSins is great, but based on the Wiki rules seems greatly out of place. The whole thing seems like it should be deleted. Ansarya (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been discussed at length and some sort of consensus was reached (see section below). There is little point in re-opening the debate and the section should stay.Tomintoul (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US release cannot be added to "Released"/"Releases" section on the template. Why?[edit]

The American release date for the film is November 1st, 2013, but is unable to be added to the Release section. Why is this? The other release date was for another country. Movie releases do get released different in different countries, and as the second release date is for an American release, it should be added to that section. I'd also like to point out that it's being distributed by an American company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed it. A very short edit summary indicating the delete was intentional was provided but a clear reason for the removal was not provided, you could probably revert (once) if you make sure to ask for further explanation.
It might be because WP:FILMRELEASE advises only listing dates shown to be notable WP:NOTABLE and most film articles only include the first release date, but some articles do include more than one release date, but the edit summary didn't mention any particular guidelines. See my other answer below, there is plenty of room for discussion. -- 109.77.152.210 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot clean up, Release dates, and country[edit]

The plot need to be cleaned up. Also I feel as thought it should be a Premise only, as the film has not been released in the United States. Also, the US release date should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please think more about what you just asked.
If a film is on general release the plot will get added. You wouldn't ask an American film article to wait until a film was released in the UK or Australia before adding the plot section. Wikipedia is not only American, and Wikipedia is not censored.
Yes it it can be annoying sometimes when Wikipedia articles are badly written and full of unnecessary spoilers, a well written plot section should have several paragraphs and allow readers to get the premise from the first paragraph or two. You are right that the plot section for this article could do with improvement.
Far I can tell there is no rule about when to add the Plot section but the defacto consensus is to only add the plot when a film goes on general release but there are times (especially with smaller films that might not get a wide release) where I would be glad to see a plot section added even before a film has gone on general release, such as when films are shown at the Sundance or the Toronto film festivals.
There is a guideline about release dates. You could try to argue that the US release date is notable enough and show examples of other UK film articles that include both the UK and US release dates but it looks like there are some other editors who think only one release date should be listed. (I'll even help you here, e.g. The Boat That Rocked includes UK and US dates, Four Weddings and a Funeral includes a festival date and a UK date, and Notting Hill (film) only includes the UK date.) -- 109.76.51.225 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Reception format[edit]

The consensus is to rework the "Reception" section as proposed by ZarhanFastfire. The consensus is that there is no need for a separate "Plot holes" subsection with the list of four rules.

Cunard (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Several years ago one editor pursued an agenda of attacking the film using original research and was opposed. The editor then found individual sources for individual points but continued to allow their personal POV to stand in the form of a separate section which enumerated the rules of the film, which the sources cited did not do. They appear to be fixated on this. I have made an attempt to balance the section by not treating the topic of plot holes any differently from other topics praised or decried by different critics of the film, as we normally do in film articles. There is no need for a separate section on a single topic like this. It is UNDUE and POV and SYNTH to do that and to enumerate a list of rules when these are and should be referred to ONCE in the plot itself. This is not a fan site where the film can be nitpicked to death by one person. This is an encylopedia article where we report what was said and no more in the appropriate places. The rules may be described in the plot but they do not need to be rehashed by the editor in reception under a separate banner. Finally, the language used by the editor in reporting / quoting the sources is undue, making it sound like these are not reviewer's opinions but stated facts.

This RfC asks one question: is the reception section fine as it is, or should it be reworked in some manner based on the above? For those interested in what it could look like should these suggestions be followed, I redid it once myself and it was reverted this morning. I reverted back but probably should have made this comment and RfC first. It has since been reverted again, and I was "ordered" not to revert again on my talk page, unsigned. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "four rules" are poorly cited, if at all. Remove them. There is room for critics mention of plotholes in the Reception section, it does not need a section all of its own. As I think I've pointed out before, a great many films have plotholes once you start analysing them. They are only significant if reliable sources also mention them as negatively impacting the film's reception. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies to Zarhan for forgetting to sign my post. And I accept his apology for re-reverting without asking for comment, which he has now done. I challenge the assertion of POV. Every item in this section is referenced and there is no personal comment. The reason a sub-section is required here is that the film is 'About Time' and the references to plot holes are specifically about that. It is an unusual situation, but one that has stood the test of time – the sub-section structure has been like that for many years without any other editor wishing to change it, despite numerous changes being made to other sections by many people. The sub-section should stay as it is.Tomintoul (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editorial language is personal comment when it is not neutral. Words like 'indicated' and 'pointed out that' imply the opinions/interpretations by reviewers are facts. Having a section standing alone is a big red flag saying look over here, there are huge plot holes in the movie. It doesn't get more POV than that. Subsections for a criticism section are fine when they are genuinely problematic (censorship, protests, response by historians, scientific community) not everyday things like some critics criticizing a movie. The reason given for the subsection is special pleading (nothing unusual about critics describing plot holes) and how long the article has been in this state is irrelevant. Other editors called the format out years ago, and another editor just said the enumerated rules should be removed as they are not sourced in the criticism section, so it is disingenuous at best and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at worst to say they didn't. I wondered if you would concede that anything was subject to improvement when I called the RfC and I am disappointed but not suprised at your reaction. With the greatest respect, you do not WP:OWN the article or this section of it. By the way, this is an RfC not a regular back and forth debate. Let's let other editors comment for the next month, please.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Shouldn't there be an RFC tag on this section?Tomintoul (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thank you for that reminder. Participated in many, first time I've ever called one.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reworking per ZarhanFastfire's version (diff). Prose is better than lists and I can't recall any other film article with a "Plot holes" section. I feel that this should be integrated into the rest of the critical reception, and probably cut down further than what Zarhan did. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Porthpean House location[edit]

References for Porthpean House being used in the film can be found here [1] here [2] and here [3]. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?[edit]

There is no genre in the introduction and there’s no note stating why this is so. This is a romantic comedy, not a fantasy or a sci-fi movie, so is there any opposition to it being called “romantic comedy”? AlienChex (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


It is most certainly not science fiction – gaping plot holes about time travel rule that out – so I think 'romantic comedy' is probably the most appropriate genre.Tomintoul (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:About_Time_(2013_film)&oldid=1216816793"