Talk:Requiem for a Dream

Inclusion of poster & DVD cover

Wikipedia has two images for this movie:

• A poster:
• A DVD cover: DVD cover

Which should be in the article? I see no reason to favor one over the other which is why I think both should be on there.

Example with both: [1] Cburnett 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although it's clear Brownies insists the poster be on the page because he/she uploaded it today. I'm curious as to why it's necessary to favor the poster over the DVD cover. Cburnett 20:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The native format for a film is still the cinematic release, not the DVD. So material pertaining the cinematic release should be favored over other material.
• Both should not be shown. First, this looks like one big poster at first sight, second, a large part is repetition anyway, third, this implies that more is better, and there might be several dozen posters for certain films. A representative sample is much better. --Yooden 21:40, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I disagree that native format is relevant. It's a bad excuse to upload another picture to obsolete another... Cburnett 22:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, a film being a film, it's all about native format. Also, I wouldn't call it obsoleteness but improvement. --Yooden 22:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Actually, I'd think a film would be about the content not the medium. There's nothing gained by having the poster over the DVD cover. It's WP:POV. Cburnett 22:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You think a film poster in an article about the film is POV? What is gained is relevance, as the material is more relevant to the medium the film is made for. The medium is important, else we would have seen more films done with video cameras. Have you ever seen Lawrence of Arabia on a big screen? --Yooden 22:48, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

No. I am saying your insistence on choice A over choice B is POV. You've said it yourself that they're similar ("a large part is repetition anyway"). The medium is irrelevant when choosing poster over DVD cover. Your choice is entirely POV and POV isn't a good reason. Cburnett 22:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About POV: I think I stated the reasons for my choice, and I don't think any of the reasons can be described as POV. Avoiding POV does not mean that you can arbitrarily include anything you like to include into a given article. --Yooden 23:12, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

About the medium: The medium is relevant because, as I stated above, it is the medium the film was originally made for. Thus, the cinematic poster is more relevant to a film than the DVD cover. If, on the other hand, we would talk about a made-for-TV movie which would someway find its way into the cinemas, a program announcement might be the pictoral representation for it. --Yooden 23:12, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

You claim that we should favor one over another despite them being nearly the same by your own admittance. I claim you can't choose either because it's just your point of view. I can't think of any objective means to make a decision (ergo my inclusion of both). Both contain the same information. If the poster had legible text at the bottom then that wouldn't be true, but it's not. So where does this leave us?

About similarity: You can't have it both ways; either the pictures are similar enough that any preference would be impossible; in which case, what are you talking about? Or they are similar, in which case we should find reasons to use one or the other. More important, this is not about the looks of either picture (nor any information contained in them), it's about where they come from and what they mean. Another Point (and please address this): If you don't see a difference between the two, why don't you step back and let my reason to include the poster stand?

About POV: "I can't think of any objective means to make a decision" Well, I can, and I explained my reasoning on this very page. Please make your point by addressing the reasons I gave or by providing your own. So, once again: Film is an art form where the product is meant for cinematic release, so the picture pertaining to said cinematic release is more relevant than one pertaining to some secondary use. --Yooden

Another thought: Assuming we would add an article about Requiem's DVD - would it be better to use the cinematic poster or the DVD cover to illustrate it? --Yooden

Since we're at an impass then it's unfair for you to say I have to accept your decision and it's unfair for you to go with my decision of putting both in. Until something's decided I'm going to remove the picture all together. I ask you to not revert it until we can come to a compromise. Cburnett 00:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the poster is the best choice and generally agree with Yooden's arguments. But (as also stated above) the images are quite similar and I personally don't think it's very important which is in the article. I am however very much against including both pictures on the page because of the similarity. Aenar 01:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course the article will be useful with either one. That's no reason though to accept the second best choice. --Yooden

Sorry, I don't see the point of this at all. The article is more useful with a picture, and removing it to get some 'compromise' makes no sense. --Yooden

sigh, it's like arguing with a wall. You clearly have no intention to compromise since the picture always must be your way. By replacing it you completely neglect my opinion and force me to accept your solution. Way to act like a community. What's your mailing address? I'll send you a gold star to make your mom proud. Cburnett 04:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WTF? I am not ignoring your opinion, I just happen to have another one, and frankly I haven't seen much in terms of reasoning backing up yours. Yet again, please address the following points:

• The native form of release for a film is the cinematic release. So a pictoral representation belonging to this cinematic release is more relevant than one belonging to a secondary form of use.
• If you "can't think of any objective means to make a decision", on what basis are you arguing?
• Assuming we would add an article about Requiem's DVD - would it be better to use the cinematic poster or the DVD cover to illustrate it?
• Do you think the article would be better with a) the cinematic release poster or b) no picture at all? --Yooden

If you weren't ignoring my opinion you wouldn't insistently change the picture to your opinion.

If I would ignore your opinion, I would have this discussion.

• Yeah, and I've said it's irrelevant. Again you disagree, again you keep your opinion by keeping the poster up.

Yes, because I don't take your word for it. State some reasons.

• The basis I'm arguing on is the exact opposite as you: finding something objective instead of subjective. You're using some irrelevant means to support your opinion and it's all POV. You will never convince me that the medium is *SO* important that it decides this issue. it's a lame duck for an excuse.

Ok, so your are not convinced. Let's try something new then: State your reasons to prefer the DVD cover over the cinematic release poster.

• THERE WON'T BE AN ARTICLE ON JUST THE DVD!!!!!!!! It's absurd, it's the same movie. If anything, this point is just a straw-man. This article is about the movie not the movie on film and not the movie on DVD. The movie, the content; the medium is irrelevant to the article. How many times can I repeat this.

So stop just saying it and start finding reasons why I should agree with you. Why is the medium of a film not relevant?

• Do you think the article would be better with the DVD cover or nothing? See, I can force my opinion on you too!

This was only about removing any picture altogether. Yes, the DVD cover would be better than no cover.

Like I've said, you're ignoring my opinion by reverting *ANY* change I've made to your opinion. A double picture is a compromise: you remove it. No picture is a compromise: you remove it. Whatever, you win. Still, what's your address? I'll bump it to two gold stars for making me repeat myself. Cburnett 18:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Odds and Ends

Is there any source except IMDb for the alternative title? Was it ever used anywhere? --Yooden 02:38, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Reason for preferring the cinematic release poster over the DVD cover

The native form of release for a film is the cinematic release. So a pictoral representation belonging to this cinematic release is more relevant than one belonging to a secondary form of use.

Yeah, you still don't GET IT Yooden. You win, whatever. You're not worth my time any more. Congrats, you're up to three gold stars. Cburnett 20:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Heroin' in the movie

Harry has to have his arm amputated in a hospital after the heroin injections caused an infection

I seem to remember seeing pupil dilation during the injection scenes. Heroin causes pupils to constrict. Some with whom I have discussed this say that it is a mistake, and the drug being taken is meant to be heroin. some claim the drug is more likely some kind of amphetamine (unlikely due to the characters reactions). In my opinion, it was likely done because the specific drug involved isn't relevant to the theme. anyhow, I don't think that the article should specify a drug when none is explicitly mentioned in the film. --Morbid-o 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The book says it's heroin. So it's reasonable to assume that it's heroin in the movie too (despite the pupil dilation, which is likely just for effect). R Calvete 02:37, 2005 August 20 (UTC)