Jump to content

Talk:Tenet (film)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orange Suede Sofa (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 6 November 2022 (→Undue prominence of fan theories: The following section has the same problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Timelines graphic

There are some great graphics available online that explain the complex timeline of the film - can any of them be included in this article or does their licensing prevent that? Could even merit a seperate sub-section in the article to explain the overall timeline, which I think you need to understand to have any chance of understand the film. 78.18.254.195 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is already talked about at Tenet (film)#Temporal paradoxes and free will, with info backed up by reliable sources. The purpose of this article is not explaining and it's not for readers to completely the film, much less a film so logically complex as this one. The purpose of this article is giving notable, relevant, and reliably sourced information on and about the film mostly from a real-world perspective, talking about aspects of its production, release, and reception. Explaining the timeline would most likely be original research, and it would put an emphasis on the logic of the film that is inappropriate and unencyclopedic for Wikipedia. —El Millo (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be several WP:RS articles that have such graphics, so it would not be OR (i.e it would be properly sourced and verifiable). The problem with the article is that it doesn't provide the reader with some basic encyclopedic facts about the plot (i.e. that it takes place over only circa 2 weeks, and that it starts and ends on the same day). Very obvious things have been omitted to get to a plot description that is so brief that a reader has to go elsewhere to understand what is going on in the film. The "Thematic Analysis" section is a good addition, but still too abstract for a reader who is not familiar with the basic plot, and the timelines in particular. Using a sourced graphic (and/or doing an updated plot summary) could be helpful. 78.18.254.195 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that explicit consensus through discussion is needed to have a plot summary that's over 700-words long, so you'd need to either start an RfC for it or try and submit a different plot summary that's more to your liking while still under 700-words long. As for graphics, I'm not sure if they'll carry copyrights because I've not seen any. If they're simple enough they could qualify for the {{PD-textlogo}} license. However, according to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Diagrams and other images, if you take the info that's there and make your own version of the graphic it can be free, but consider a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I like the film (having previously not liked it), and like its Wikipedia article, but feel an understanding of the timeline is a critical fact needed to engage with the film (otherwise it is hard to relate to it). What if there was a separate short subsection (either within the Plot, or before the Plot) to give context on the timeline (and perhaps include a thumbnail of the timeline graphic (if I can find one that passes licensing)? Would that be considered acceptable - or useful - by others? 78.18.254.195 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this article is not about engaging or relating with the film, it's about giving relevant information about it from a real-world perspective. In-universe aspects should be relegated to the Plot summary section and partially the Cast section. If the information is backed-up by several reliable sources, then you can try it and we'll see if it doesn't fall into WP:FANCRUFT territory, but I fear it probably will. —El Millo (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The critical piece of missing information is "the 14th", the date that is mentioned several times in the film, and is when the Opera, Vietnam, and Stalsk-12 happens. I think adding it might help clarify that it starts and ends on the same day (bar the epilogue). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the 14th, I have made a few more small changes to clarify things (this Plot description is very tight). One final area I did not add was whether there should be a brief mention of the Protagonist being saved by the strange person (with a red trinket on his bag) at the Opera? 78.18.241.130 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I managed to fit this in (and trimmed some other text). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Millo, sorry for reverting you there, but this plot is too tight and missing basic facts (i.e. the 14th). The reader should not have to read the entire article (which is huge) to understand the Plot. Wikipedia allows for leniancy in Plots for complex/non-linear plots, of which this is a prime example. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example The General in His Labyrinth and FA article, has a slightly larger Plot than this current Plot (there are several more FA Plots of similar size). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:FANCRUFT. It isn't relevant for a simple understanding of the film. Its omission doesn't bar someone from understanding it. Plus, the changes you made to the Plot section added 40 words to an already too-long plot. These are WP:BOLD changes you're making, and if reverted, per WP:BRD shouldn't be reinstated. —El Millo (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whatever reason that article you cite has a larger Plot section than normally permitted doesn't automatically apply anywhere else. —El Millo (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is you demonstrating OWNERSHIP. These are central basic facts (i.e. the story starts and ends on the 14th). You even reverted to adding "what's happened happened" (another central point in the film - and already mentioned in the reference (and several others) beside it's insertion. Don't try and use BRD to make unilateral reverts of several different diverse types of edits. It only underpins a case of OWNERSHIP, and an unwillingness to engage in the specific edits (which I am happy to discuss). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when the guidelines specifically highlight that complex non-linear plots can be longer (as per the FA example I gave you). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't written this plot summary, so clearly I don't WP:OWN it. You need to justify that what you're trying to add is necessary for understanding the plot, and when you make edits that are contested by another user, you're supposed to discuss it, not reinstate it. WP:PLOTBLOAT exists for a reason, and if a plot summary can't be within it, it should be as close to it as possible. Complex non-linear plots can be longer if necessary, but they don't need to be longer. What you add, in my view, isn't necessary to understand it, at least to the extend that it is expected of a Wikipedia plot summary. Regarding the changes outside of the Plot section, I incorrectly assumed they were unsourced as well, that's on me and I apologize for that. —El Millo (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Millo, I'm now happy with your final edits (to my edits), and appreciate your response. Thanks again. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the word count even further. I think the Plot reads well now; nothing material left out. Thanks for your corporation. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It now stands at 740, the same amount as it was before your original additions while still keeping the info. Well done. —El Millo (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for appreciating the gesture, which I wanted to make. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it down to 725 words now with more clarity on timelines and logic (ie who prompted who, which is important in this film). 78.18.249.133 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have it exactly at 700 words now. The language is tight in places, but I think it works, and the "sense" of the plot is intact? 78.18.249.133 (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. The plot does now make even better sense and represents the key moments needed to have a core understanding of the film. I have added a few more words as the grammar and English is too Spartan in places. However, with such a complex plot, being a few words over the 700 is acceptable. 2603:9000:BC04:1F00:D87D:15DF:A2C8:A922 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goya vs. Rubens

I have seen some confusion in the plot section regarding the Goya and Rubens. In the script/screenplay, Sir Michael Crosby describes his Goya in the Harrods bag as "It's a fake, by a Spaniard named Arepo. One of two we confiscated from an embezzler in Bern". In the next line, Crosby calls the other one "A Rubens." (the script/screenplay uses the term Rubens again when Sator shows Kat he still has the painting). In the film, however, the short sentence, "A Rubens." is left out (I thought it was in it, but having rewatched the Sir Michael scene again with close captioning, the sentence is left out). Therefore, one could assume that the other painting was also a Goya? What should be done? Several sources assume both are Goyas (e.g. here, and here). 78.18.249.133 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does a Wikipedia Plot follow the film or the script/screenplay? 78.18.249.133 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many times, if not most times, film's differ from the screenplay. I for one never doubted that it was anything other than a Goya while watching the film, and reliable sources assuming it too should take us to just stating it as a Goya, without even mentioning such a minor, trivial discrepancy with a line from the screenplay which we don't know if they even got to utter during filming. —El Millo (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. thanks. 78.18.249.133 (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of changes

Anon IP editor: I would leave you a note on your talk page but you seem to hop IP addresses, so I'll air it out here. You seem to be protective of the contents of this page in a manner consistent with acting as if the article belongs to you. I must say you have done FANTASTIC work in making the plot more accessible (not an easy feat for a film like this), but I'm only trying to make it more so, removing clunky wording and streamlining things a bit more. You don't get to revert me just because you, and only you, think it's unnecessary or dislike my changes. Like it or not, everyone is invited to contribute and you don't get to just keep it one way because you personally prefer it. I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole better. I've let you do whatever you please to undo the work I, and other editors, have done so far. I only ask the same courtesy in return. (I should also point out that hopping IP addresses is one reason account creation is strongly encouraged: it makes it easier for people to reach you in editing disputes.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can revert anyone, and the IP only reverted you once. You can't call that WP:OWN behavior. The reversion also just happened, so you don't know if it's "them and only them" that thought your edit was unnecessary. I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole better some times, a lot of times, we as editors revert others because we are trying to make the article better as a whole, the same way someone makes an edit because they think they are making the article better. That's why we have discussions at talk pages. If you make a WP:BOLD edit and are reverted, you should come here discuss in order to see if it was correctly or incorrectly reverted, if there should be a compromise or if any of the two parties are convinced that the other way is the correct one. —El Millo (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would call a vague edit summary like "Original wording was better", coming from the editor who instated said original wording in the first place, protective in an ownership way (it's actually nearly a textbook example per the policy page itself). Not explaining it or even calling it a good faith reversion reeks of that and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not about to revert anyone either, I'm just disappointed the practice here is to shut people down rather than work collaboratively with them. I already commended the editor for their work in making this plot comprehensible; I was only trying to help make it even more so. I was told it wasn't helpful without being told why. I at least explained a bit why I felt the way I put it was more informative, in this talk page section if not in an edit summary. Maybe not a lot more so, but certainly more valuable than simply being thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. But if people want it the way it is now, I don't care anymore. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Plot" section, of all sections in a film article, will be the most overwritten in the course of time. This was the "Plot" section a year ago. Next year it could be completely different from either version. In the scheme of things, it's not worth striving for a "perfect" version of the plot summary here. Contributions to other sections are much more enduring and worthwhile. My $0.02 about whether or not to bother with plot-related edits. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue prominence of fan theories

The "Hitchcockian doubles and MacGuffins" section feels uncomfortably like a list of Wikia fan theories. Unlike the usual film analysis we see in articles, fan theories tend to be individual creative exercises to fill in narrative gaps. It's true that there are sources that support the existence of various theories, yet that doesn't make any of the theories notable enough to make a case for their validity, which happens a few times in this section. I suggest reducing the section to an acknowledgement that the film has generated many competing fan theories and then possibly merging into another section; the ScreenRant article would be a good source for that. Thoughts? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The classification "Hitchcockian doubles" seems not to be backed up by RSes either, at least not extensively, as the term doesn't appear in any of the written references readily available. I agree it could be merged with another section just mentioning that there were many competing fan theories. —El Millo (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the following section, "Unreliable narrators", suffers from the same problem. It leads with clear original research and then relies on the aforementioned fan theories as evidence. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenet_(film)&oldid=1120423049"