Talk:Nocturnal Animals

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 27 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mossmh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot synopsis v subjective reading

The final paragraph is NOT a description of the film's ending, but rather a subjective reading of what is shown onscreen, which could have other intrepretions.

I'd suggest a more neutral, and therefore accurate, final paragraph would read:

'Susan finiahes the novel, and writes to Edmund congratulating him and suggesting they meet to talk. Edward responds inviting her to name the time and place, and Susan arranges a rendezvous at a fashionable restaurant, arriving first. As the evening wears on, Edmund fails to appear, leaving her sitting alone.'

I'd also argue that this is also not clearly shown in the film, and again goes beyond plot summary: 'Edward attempted to repair their relationship, but ultimately cut ties with Susan upon learning that she was pregnant with his child and secretly had an abortion to ensure the divorce proceedings ran as expected.' Where is it stated that this happened during divorce proceedings? 86.134.9.100 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it is very subjective and I have read other interpretations. I have edited to what you have suggested. Dracos (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, another possible interpretation is that she is going mad with insomnia and simply imagined the whole thing, including some of the conversations with her "current" husband (hence her PA Zawe Ashton saying she didn't know she'd been married before). I dare say other views are also available.Paulturtle (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my interpretation is somewhere in-between: that she's full of regret considering her new sham of a relationship and has entirely imagined Edward's novel and him sending it to her. It may be far-fetched but "making it clear that he does not forgive her" seems completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.156.151 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Nocturnal Animals (film) → Nocturnal Animals – No need for parenthetical suffix "(film)" - I just looked at the links to Nocturnal Animals (capitalized) and there were three links related to the film, as opposed to Nocturnality, which was what the capitalized phrase pointed to until a few minutes ago. The search term Nocturnal animals, with a lower-case "a", can remain pointing to Nocturnality. KConWiki (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. A hatnote to Nocturnality already exists atop this entry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Nocturnal Animals

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nocturnal Animals's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From Universal Studios: "Box Office by Studio – Universal All Time". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 26, 2016.
• From Joaquin Phoenix: "Parenthood (1989)". Box Office Mojo. March 5, 2007. Retrieved January 7, 2010.
• From Anomalisa: "Anomalisa (2015)". boxofficemojo.com. Retrieved 21 February 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading Title

This is a Misleading Title as "Animals active at night" are Nocturnal Animals. The misleading title is just allowed by editors of Wikipedia to advertise the movie for free on Wikipedia. Look at the demographic makeup of both Wikipedia and the producers of the movie and the reason is apparent. There should be a reference to the date of the movie or other indication it's a movie. This article is just Spamming the end user looking for Nocturnal Animals (Animals Active at night). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.148.3 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Genre

The film has very few of the characteristics described in Neo-noir or Film noir. Rotten Tomatoes, a respected film review source, describes the genre as "Drama, Crime, Mystery And Thriller". No mention of "noir". This source certainly carries more weight than the opinion of a couple of Wikipedia editors. In the absence of any compelling evidence, "noir" should be removed, regardless of any other genre descriptors. Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple reviewers have classified the film as a "neo-noir", including [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], and that was just from the first page of Google hits. It makes sense to add some of these in to support the claim, though. The Parade and Guardian reviews are probably the best support.

Separately, for the text you have rewritten, the film explicitly shows that Tony shoots himself in the abdomen. I agree with your concern about the "cerebral hemorrhage" claim, and I think it's fair that we not state the blow or the gunshot is the ultimate cause of death, but a gunshot wound to the abdomen is explicitly depicted before the character dies. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So are you saying that you can see the angle of the gun after he falls (not while he is falling)? You know specifically from watching the film that the gun is not pointed toward the chest (where a shot is more likely to be fatal), or toward his groin, or toward the ground? If so, tell us whether it was pointed toward the upper, lower, left, or right quadrant of the abdomen. You know from watching the film that the gunshot entered his body, and that he did not die from the severe blows to the head he received prior to the gunshot (also more likely to cause death from a cerebral insult)? Tell us, how is it that you can see something which others can't, how you can see under his body after he falls and covers the gun. Tell us how your medical training rules out numerous causes of death. And by the way, I did not make a "bold" edit that required consensus any more than your reverting of my edit. Please don't assume ownership of the article.

Regarding genre, I would argue that none of the sources you cite are superior to Rotten Tomatoes, which aggregates numerous sources. Quantity of sources does not trump quality. In any event, the genre needs a source. Sundayclose (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. What's with all the unnecessary hostility and belligerence here? Claims of WP:OWN and rejection of WP:BRD? Seriously? When someone objects to your edits and reverts to the longstanding text, you take it to the talkpage. You don't put threats in edit summaries, drop templates on their user talkpage, and throw around accusations on the article talkpage. Opening with bad-faith accusations and ignoring WP process doesn't reflect well on you.

When was the last time you watched the film? After Tony falls, he is shown lying on his side with a gunshot wound to the abdomen, interspersed with shots of Susan in the bathtub. Starts at 2:44 in this clip [9]. I already agreed with you that we shouldn't state the cause of death (did you actually read what I wrote, or are you just engaged in ranting here?) in the plot text, which is why I didn't reintroduce it.

Quantity may not trump quality, but RT doesn't mean you can argue we ignore what other reliable sources say. Grandpallama (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The clip does not necessarily reveal a gunshot wound in any particular location. There was blood at various places on his clothing before that gunshot. Again, if you saw the gun as it fired, tell us whether it was pointed toward the upper left, lower left, upper right, or lower right quadrant of the abdomen. Also, tell us the full medical extent of his head injury. If you can't tell us that, you don't know where the shot went. And your unfounded assumptions and restoring without discussion is, in fact WP:OWN and WP:EW.

Neither of us has any superiority over the other in deciding genre. It now must be determined by consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

First, who is "us"? You're continuing to claim I am edit warring or showing ownership by "restoring without discussion", but I know you've been around WP long enough to know WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS.

The clip does not necessarily reveal a gunshot wound in any particular location. is not at all correct. The character falls on the gun. The gun goes off. The character is shown with a gunshot wound to the abdomen, with his hand clutching the bloody gunshot wound. What exactly are you arguing? It's not an unfounded assumption--the gunshot wound to the abdomen is explicitly shown.

The current consensus is the longstanding status quo genre. I'm not sure arguing it's not called "noir" by Rotten Tomatoes is a persuasive argument, because that's not a genre that RT recognizes. For instance, neither L.A. Confidential nor Chinatown are described that way by RT. Grandpallama (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm arguing that you have no clear basis except your own assumption that the bullet entered his abdomen, or his chest, or another part of his body, or the ground. The blood on the shirt was already there, and you can't tell us which quadrant the bullet entered, so you didn't see the angle of the gun when it fired, nor can you tell us the extent to which his head injuries contributed to his death. In short, you don't know any more than I do about cause of death. Your saying it went in his abdomen doesn't make it true. I've tried to simply my language as much as possible, so if you can't understand what I'm saying maybe you need to ask someone else to explain what I have said instead of repeatedly asking me to explain it.

The current consensus for genre is challenged. If necessary we'll decide by RfC. Oh by the way, what's your evidence that RT doesn't recognize a genre with "noir" in it? Or is that another one of your divinations from your supernatural powers that lets you see and know things that aren't available to the rest of humanity? Sundayclose (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the clip I shared (around 1:51), there is not actually blood on that part of his shirt before the gunshot. But I'm starting to get the sense that you are primarily arguing solely for the sake of arguing at this point, with as much unnecessary hostility and rudeness thrown in as possible. The text does not state his cause of death, but it does state he has a gunshot wound to the abdomen; both of those are supported by the clip I shared, with the wound explicitly depicted. If you want to start an RfC or seek a third opinion or open up something at DRN for that or for the genre, knock yourself out. Grandpallama (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that we'll also need an RfC about your false assumptions. I'll give this some time to see if others comment here. And I'm waiting for that evidence that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't recognize a genre with "noir" in it. I suppose you'll say I'm hallucinating what's written on this page. Sundayclose (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dead Man Down...which is not categorized as "noir" on its page on the RT website. Because they don't use that genre categorization. Grandpallama (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying that the page I linked doesn't have the phrase "Dead Man Down's genre of neo-noir"? And again, give us your evidence that RT doesn't recognize the genre. Sundayclose (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)