Talk:Being John Malkovich/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Being John Malkovich/Get Out Theory

Editors of this article might be interested in participating in this discussion on whether the theory that Being John Malkovich and Get Out take place in the same universe deserves coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Being John Malkovich. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Connection to Get Out

Am I the only one who finds this "connection" utterly trivial and irrelevant? Even if the director accepts the theory, it is still only a fan theory that really has nothing encyclopedic to offer to this article. Even if it's interesting or amusing, so what? Why do we need it in this article? What is the relevance? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

At least to me, the bar for inclusion of things like fan theories is WP:TRIVIA, in that reliable third-party sources have noted and commented on those fan theories. This would seem to qualify for that (RSes noting the video posted by Vanity Fair). There might be a bit too much in terms of UNDUE at this point, but something still could be included. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. But, yes, I do think it can be cut back significantly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My main issue was it not be given the prominent placement it originally had on the Get Out page. (Ironically it currently only survives here.) If used, it should be on the bottom of the page. I also agree it should be trimmed down. Much. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Although it will become extremely relevant if anyone involved actually goes through with "completing the trilogy." 66.130.100.34 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

More info on the story behind the script?

I'm trying to learn the history of the script's development somewhere. Does anyone have any info on how the script came to be about John Malkovich specifically? Did it start with Being (fill in actor) and it was going to be whoever they found to do the role? Was it always John Malkovich since the idea came to be? Was it ever about a fictional actor instead? Can anyone find Charlie talking about that anywhere? I couldn't find anything myself. If you can link something I'll try and do the writing into the article if sourcable. Dancindazed (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Awards

I believe the film was nominated for 3 Academy Awards. Shouldn't this be added in Critical Reception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.142.161 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this information is far more important than a detailed breakdown of the soundtrack. I just discovered Catherine Keener was nominated for this film, only because I read another entry.24.211.215.187 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, as long as sourcing is provided. Doniago (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct English?

In the section Cast, one can read the following:

... though he partly chosen because of the sound of his name in repetition ...

I admit that I am not a native speaker, but it sounds very strange to me. Is though he partly chosen even a correct English? Shoudln't it be something like though it was partly chosen or though he partly chosen it?White rotten rabbit (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've changed it to though Malkovich was partly chosen. 97198 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No Reference Tag

I think the no reference tag should be pulled. There are several sources in the article, and I just added an additional one myself. Compared to other articles on films of similar magnitude, there is sufficient citation. Thoughts? BigBrightStars (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

In what way are the recent extensive changes to the plot synopsis beneficial? Sure, it goes into more detail, but what's the point? The original synopsis was a reasonable if succinct summary. If anyone has seen the film, they will know the plot - if they haven't seen it, it's doubtful they'd want to read about it in this much detail. It looks very much to me that somebody has got a bit carried away with putting down here what they think matters, while missing the point of an encyclopedia article about a film (which isn't really to explain plots in extreme detail). I'm tempted to revert, but I'll give those anon contributors a chance to explain themselves. Graham 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What would have happened if John Malkovich had turned down the part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs)

I remember reading that Jonze or Kaufman said they'd of simply retitled it "Being Sean Penn". (citation needed)

Pop culture references

I know that Futurama referenced Being John Malkovich in season 5 episode 10 (the one with alternate universes) and as it's so iconic, does anyone know of anywhere else this movie is referenced so a new section could be put up? Vanityjunkie 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall a commercial parody oh this film, ethier for ESPN or NIKE, where you are looking through the eyes of an athlete in a night club dancing with a beautiful model, the model moves and starts to kiss then it cuts away to the jersey turnpike where a teen aged boy lands, grinning from ear to ear. If anyone remembers this commercial please expand on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickz (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Problem

"Several characters in the movie remember Malkovich as having played a jewel thief, even though, as he correctly points out, he never did. However, Malkovich did eventually play a jewel thief in Johnny English (2003)."
How can the characters in a 1999 film know that John Malkovich will play a jewel theif in a 2003 film?

It's pointing out a coincidence. In the movie it's a joke (in a way about how Malkovich isn't the best known actor) and they mistake him for another actor who played a jewel theif. In that little tid bit it's just pointing out the coincidence that John Malkovich eventually did play a jewel theif. HasBeenCorrected 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gross

How much money did this film gross? Better yet, where can I find this type of information? --202.47.49.94 09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDB.com - it actually needs to be in the article really 193.62.251.32 11:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Note although I'm not logged in this is Addyboy - it's also me who tagged the article as needing the trivia section sorted out and citations put in place.

Trivia

The trivia section of this article is lifted almost directly from IMDB

>An issue that I have with the trivia section is that the "beer can" shot (which is unsourced) might actually be completely wrong because of a video circling the internet that is apparently from the DVD commentary. This link says the scene was actually improvised. Does anyone have the DVD or the original scripts to see if this is true? http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2133

Cars whiz by Malkovich. Someone yells from a passing car.

MOTORIST Hey, Malkovich! Think fast!

Malkovich looks up. A beer can comes flying out of the car and hits him on the head.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.175.4 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

question

wait, so was this movie written for Malkovitch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.205.88 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was. Eligius (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironic that John Malkovich wasn't nominated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.231.186 (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanded History/Story Behind The Film

Just listened to the Wired, Charlie Kaufman interview. There is so much to this movie and all there is is a plot summary?

I don't understand why nobody has added anything? Rudolpma (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

The whole article is pretty poor, grammar being random and the meaning unclear. The plot summary is particularly confusing. Since I haven't seen the film myself, it would be nice if someone who is familiar with it could make some amendments so the rest of us can understand what it's about. Deb (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the movie. The plot itself is particularly confusing. I'm not sure how much editing would fix the plot summary of a confusing plot. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)