Talk:The Babadook

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

Sources[edit]

Hollywood Reporter
IMDB
New York Post
i09
Slashfilm
Indiewire
Joblo
- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphorical meaning[edit]

Is the Babadook (anagram of 'A Bad Book') even supposed to be real in terms of the film? Or just a metaphorical manifestation of Amelias stress, depression and grief? The article only gives a brief summary of the plot assuming The Babadook to be about an actual 'monster' rather than a metaphorical representation.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.152.61 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you signed the above comment, but I agree that the Babadook is entirely metaphorical, and represents grief more than anything else. I also think this is worth adding to the article, so please feel welcome to contribute. I will also try to look at the matter, as I have been editing the page recently. Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2014(UTC)
First of all, is it okay to lie about it being "HELPFUL" to sign a Talk Page? Truthfully it is not helpful, it doesn't make a bit of difference. Secondly, there seems to be a general lack of respect for the Rules in general, but of course people feel the rules don't affect them, only everyone else. Here is the big one you ignore on Talk... TALK IS NOT A FORUM FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT. Yet it seems to be your speciality.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8a90:ecf0:39ee:9664:20f5:d9c3 (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no further addition for Metaphorical Meaning in this wiki since these comments. I have an interest in contributing, so I'll see to it that the symbolism is recognized. If anyone can further add to the section I am about to create, that would be immensely helpful. There is a lack of articles on this film regarding symbolism, so by all means help locate the ones that exist and cite away! Cheers. RalphSheldon (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly add to this section. Thanks! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The symbolism section needs to be edited to acknowledge the problematization of motherhood in the film (e.g. see Kent's interview in Empire). There are plenty of readings out on the web that see the Babadook as representing ambivalence and anger towards one's own child or lurking postnatal depression. That the two male sources in the Symbolism section currently narrowly see the monster representing grief is understandable but problematic. Some women's voices need to be incorporated into this section.Kdcarm (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Trick[edit]

The synopsis claims "Sam performs a magic trick that seems beyond the abilities of a child." Actually, the trick--producing a bird--is a pretty common one that amateur magicians around the world regularly perform. Since we know that Sam is a fan of magic, I wouldn't say this trick was necessarily beyond his abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.22.45 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Too Detailed?[edit]

Isn't the plot section a bit too detailed? I know Wikipedia doesn't do spoilers, but if someone is just interested in the movie and is checking out its page, won't the ending of the film (or the page of any film on Wikipedia for the that matter) ruin the whole reason someone comes to Wikipedia? I think just the first paragraph is enough to give a general idea of the plot without completely ruining it. Another option would be to just put the synopsis given at http://thebabadook.com/home/

  • "The film tells of a single mother, plagued by the violent death of her husband, who battles with her son’s night time fear of a shadowy monster. But soon, she discovers a sinister presence is lurking in the house."

Even if the section is left more expanded than as I suggest, I still think what's there now is too long. I suppose I'm confused because for certain films, there is just a brief description and for others there are long, in-depth descriptions that ruin crucial plot points. --Andrew 98.233.249.211 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people come to Wikipedia for teasers about coming attractions or recent releases. A lot of people come to Wikipedia for academic discussions of films that are under discussion and analysis. I assume that Wikipedia plot sections may contain spoilers. In fact there are Wikipedia editors who flag descriptions of novels or films that read like ad blurbs. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the only reason there are some with brief descriptions is because no one has fleshed them out yet. You can tell pretty quickly that the plot section is describing the entire thing, so all you have to do is scroll past it or close the page. The synopsis is already in the lead, "a woman and her son are tormented by an evil entity." It could use some expanding, but the brief synopsis belongs in the lead, while the detailed plot description is more than appropriate where it is now. For a better frame of reference for this, check out some of the Good and Featured Articles for films, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Sock (tock talk) 14:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers - it's an encyclopaedia. See WP:SPOILER. Popcornduff (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some confusion. What does chalk on her hands have to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian/Canadian[edit]

The intro and the infobox claim it's an Australian/Canadian production. Nothing else in the article clarifies that and Google doesn't turn anything up either. How is it Canadian? Dr-ziego (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The production company is Australian (Causeway Films) and that is the defining factor of a film's nationality, the production company. So I don't see how it's Australian and also don't see why United States is in the infobox. Seems purely Australian to me. Distribution companies etc are irrelevant when it comes to determining a film's nationality. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, someone's removed that now - but now in the infobox it says English and French for language? Is there even a single line of French in it? Dr-ziego (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. Feel free to remove that. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


LGBT Icon[edit]

I've reverted this because it seems undue in an article about the movie. Like I said in my edit summary, I might be able to see including it if this survives a couple news cycles, but right now it doesn't seem relevant or likely to be long-lasting. ~ Rob13Talk 19:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gathering articles and sources to the claim that the Babadook has become an LGBT icon, not because it was explicitly stated in the movie, but because the community as a whole has adopted the character as a sort of mascot of the movement. There has already been multiple newsoutlets reporting on it, and the claim has been around since January. The information about him becoming an LGBT icon is fitting under the 'Symbolism' sub-category. ~User:The Babadook is Gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Babbadook is Gay (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The press coverage is coverage of a meme just today. It's not sustained coverage indicating this is worth recording in an encyclopedia article. A tumblr post obviously means nothing in terms of coverage. ~ Rob13Talk 04:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that mention of LGBT interpretations of the Babadook are now notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article, and that the "Symbolism" section would be an appropriate place for them. I was swayed by this article in Vox, which is slightly more in-depth and thoughtful than some of the other potential sources. I was surprised not to see any mention of it and I think many readers would be as well. I think in the long run people are going to continue to try to add mention of it, and I'd say with good reason. The article will continue to see very silly attempts to include the info if we don't offer an NPOV version. I don't think including it would in any way undermine the seriousness of the article, so long as 1) the mention is brief and to the point, 2) it's made clear that the meme is partially in jest, partially a celebration of the character, and partially a serious—if unexpected and marginal—interpretation of the character's latent symbolic value, and 3) that the film is not on its face about LGBT themes (I would not advocate, for instance, to include the article in a category like Category:2010s LGBT-related films).
For my part, I'd offer this as a draft (the info is basically all synthesized from the Vox article, but I think other sources can be used to supplement and bolster the justification for including the info on notability grounds):
"Starting in late 2016, the character of the Babadook was portrayed in Internet memes as an unlikely gay icon on Tumblr and other social media sites. Despite the absence of overt references to LGBT culture in the film, fans and journalists generated interpretations of queer subtext in the film that were often tongue-in-cheek, but occasionally more serious, highlighting the character's dramatic persona, grotesque costume, and chaotic effect within a traditional family structure."
Contrast that with The Babadook is Gay's well-meaning, but probably unsuitable, version:
"As of June 2017, the Babadook has been popularly claimed to be an LGBT icon, and arguably Jewish, by social media site users from Twitter and Tumblr alike. These claims are completely true."
That last sentence of course is completely in the spirit of the jokier versions of the meme itself. I'm not sure at all where the Jewish part comes from, none of the articles linked above mention that. But I'd argue that it's still notable if handled correctly, and I'd be interested to hear from others so some consensus can form on whether to include this information and if so in what capacity. —BLZ · talk 18:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the matter has been covered in multiple secondary sources, including Los Angeles Times and Newsweek, so we would be remiss not to at least mention it. There does seem to be enough coverage to warrant a paragraph, and since it is not really tied to any particular existing section, it could make up its own section. That section could go at the end as a non-critical section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik and Brandt Luke Zorn: My counter-example would be things like this: [1]. Sports Illustrated is extremely reliable for sports, but we don't include such a story in a Wikipedia article because it doesn't warrant non-zero weight. Say this coverage dies down tomorrow and never comes back. We had a brief human interest story about how some Twitter and Tumblr users decided a character in a movie was LGBT. That has no lasting relevance and certainly doesn't alter the context of the movie itself. I'm not disputing whether this is true or covered in a single news cycle, I'm disputing whether a few stories all written within 24 hours of each other basically saying "a piece of fanfiction was trending on Twitter" is really relevant enough to the overall movie to include a mention of it in the article. If this is still making headlines in a week, my tune would change, but right now we have a trending hashtag, a couple stories saying "hey, this hashtag is trending", and that's it. That's not exactly Judy Garland level. ~ Rob13Talk 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is an argument for keeping the meme mention in context — this page should not claim it's actually a gay film unless reliable sources seriously do so. To go further, WP:PROPORTION and WP:RECENT are arguments for keeping the meme mention brief, in a lower section, and out of the intro. That said, requiring "sustained coverage" to expand an article with a new sentence or paragraph? That appears to misinterpret the notability guideline, which, to paraphrase WP:N's intro, applies to whether a topic should have an article, not to the content of articles. Quite a lot, perhaps nearly all, sentences and paragraphs on Wikipedia are cited to a single source. Such a use of the notability guideline would be disruptive, leading to glaring omissions on many topics. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about applying WP:PROPORTION. In regard to considering coverage, I think it is more about getting beyond indiscriminate detailing. If certain details relate closely enough to a staple section, then they are easily incorporated. For example, the film Gods of Egypt was released in some Middle Eastern countries as Kings of Egypt. That was its own headline, but it was put in the "Theatrical run" section. This particular aspect does not fit anywhere well, so I think that leads to warranting its own section. If it was just one or two headlines, that would have made arguing for a section tougher since it is more prominent. (This is an issue regarding film-related controversies too.) However, there is enough coverage to make up a reasonable, if lower-tier, section about the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is ongoing; LA Times, Vanity Fair, Newsweek, all from today. Undue would be a valid argument(for now, anyways) to oppose the creation of say Babadook (LGBT icon); this is a paragraph sub-section of an otherwise forgettable indie flick. TheValeyard (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another essay in birthmoviesdeath, a film site that is cited throughout Wikipedia. I want to be clear that I definitely think this warrants, at most, about a single paragraph's worth of text within the existing "symbolism" section—a subheading at most. My position is really similar to User:Erik and User:Matt Fitzpatrick's, as far as application of policy and feeling that some brief, contextual mention is appropriate. And while the glut of stories have emerged in the last 24 hours, note that the meme (and more importantly, stories about the meme) has been brewing for months. Those first tumblr posts you mention, User:BU Rob13, were certainly the genesis of this meme/interpretation, but the idea of the Babadook as queer has spread through word of mouth and sharing of these memes that goes beyond merely "a piece of fanfiction was trending on Twitter".
Why so many stories in such a short window? Is this totally fleeting? I'd say no, there is a rational explanation for the burst of articles all at once. The time hook for news publications to publish something now is Pride Month, so you're going to see a lot of LGBT human-interest and cultural stories in general; if anything, the wait-and-see period of the queered Babadook standing the test of time has already occurred, and these stories are the recognition that "whoa, this goofy meme that we remember from a few months ago really has legs and widespread currency within LGBT culture, it's time to write and think about this more in depth." And of course, while the Babadook is not Judy Garland (to say the least), and, analogously, flash-in-the-pan memes of sports figures making faces come and go, compare Crying Jordan; memes can be highly notable! But again I'm not arguing for, as User:TheValeyard put it, a whole Babadook (LGBT icon) article, that would be absurd and truly undue. (But also, TheValeyard: The Babadook is "otherwise forgettable"? C'mon! This is a great and critically acclaimed horror film).
I've added the text I wrote earlier back into the article, I think it gives some of the much-needed context that puts this thing in proportion while giving it its due. —BLZ · talk 05:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Babadook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semetic[edit]

this image appears to be that of a wandering Jew. what do you make of this?--66.213.14.116 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that?--Auric talk 16:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Arcahaeoindris (talk) and Yoshiman6464 (talk). Nominated by Arcahaeoindris (talk) at 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • An interesting article, improved to GA within the requisite timeframe, policy compliant, no obvious copyvios. Hook fact is interesting and cited, and supported by the cited source. Earwig only flags quotes. No QPQ appears to be required. GTG. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arcahaeoindris and Vanamonde93: I had quite the laugh perusing this article – might i suggest another hook?
  • I'm having too much fun stuffing things in, so it can be pared down if needed. I really wanted to work in "The B in LGBT stands for The Babadook", but couldn't figure it out ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theleekycauldron: I'm okay with that; could you work the picture in? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: could it be cropped a little? Mr. Babadook isn't quite visible for me... it should be clearer if the image is shaved off a bit horizontally. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron Sure it can, but not by me :) Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: all right, done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol I really like your second one. I will just add "horror film" to it for clarity - hope this doesn't make it too long. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • theleekycauldron Vanamonde93 I wonder if the image can be considered free use because it's from a non-public domain horror movie. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SL93: It's not original artwork from the film, though, it's a fan's drawing thereof...Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fan_art#Does_Commons_want_fan_art?_Isn't_it_original_research? says, "You will also infringe the copyright in a movie if you copy creative elements or characters from the story in a manner similar to the way in which those elements or characters are presented on screen." It appears that a copy of the fanart would still not be free use. This is why reproductions of Winnie-the-Pooh were only allowed without permission recently when the copyright expired. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is now up for deletion at Commons. I did notice that the original uploader has had other images removed for copyright reasons. SL93 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a non-approval tick here to indicate potential problems, in this case with the picture. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating approval now that the image has been deleted from Commons. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reading the Guardian article trying to verify the hook so I can promote. I can't find anyplace that directly supports "the absence of overt references to LGBT culture". It's kind of hinted at, but I think we need something more than kind of hinted at. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arcahaeoindris my apologies, I failed to ping you on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah thanks @RoySmith:. Just edited the hooks above. Is that better? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that works, thanks. I promoted this then realized the hook was changed enough that it probably needs a new approval. So, let me approve the new version of ALT0 and ALT1 and I'll leave it for someobody else to promote. BTW, rather than editing the hook, it's better to just strike out the old one and make a new one, ALT0a or ALT2, or whatever. It's easier to follow the history that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Babadook&oldid=1205577861"