Talk:Idiocracy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Introduction Removed

The User "Doniago" removed my introduction which added an explanation why the dystopian society came to be(kind of the whole point of the movie), whereas as it exists now it simply presents the society being dystopian and doesn't explain why. Doniago claimed it was "excessive plot detail" which I think is ridiculous. Karachishu (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It was redundant to later text in the plot summary. Millahnna (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Not true. Karachishu (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't particularly matter how it came to be, since the movie itself doesn't examine the origins of the society. What matters is that our protagonist finds himself thrust into it. DonIago (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Have you actually seen the film? You can find the introduction on Youtube. Karachishu (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The current text doesn't explain the premise of the film's setting clearly, and a synopsis of the film should include reference to its 3-minute opening sequence. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Millahnna and DonIago: the "introduction" is unnecessary. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For those who are supportive of the reverted text, would I be correct that your basic problem is that the concept contained in this sentence is what you feel is left out of describing the setting? (copied from the reverted diff):

With no natural predators, natural selection "began to simply reward those who reproduced the most and left the intelligent to become an endangered species."

Because I think a pruned version of that sentence could be merged into the second paragraph where we describe the setting that Joe wakes up in (the paragraph starting with Washington D.C.) As it stands now, the proposed edit is very wordy and, outside of that sentence, pretty much duplicated in that D.C. paragraph, conceptually. SO with that thought in mind what if we changed that paragraph to read:

While Joe and Rita were frozen, the U.S. population experienced a change in birth trends and natural selection rewarded those who reproduced the most as opposed to those with desired traits. As a result, the former Washington, D.C. has lost most of its infrastructure, with people living in plastic huts called "domistile". The human population has become morbidly stupid, speaking only low registers of English competently, are profoundly anti-intellectual, and are named after corporate products. Suspecting hallucination, Joe enters a hospital, where he is incompetently diagnosed, and comes to realize what has happened to him and to society. He is arrested for not having a bar code tattoo to pay for his doctor's appointment, and after being assigned the grossly incompetent Frito as his lawyer, he is sent to prison. Rita returns to her former profession.

Honestly it's still messy but a bit smoother to my eye than the initial proposed edit. Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing the beginning of the film somewhere other than the beginning of the summary doesn't make sense. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This is something that's discussed at various policy and guideline articles that describe writing about fiction and plot summaries specifically. Sometimes the best way to describe a film's narrative is not in the chronological order in which the film's events are depicted. I played around a bit with describing the setting as a standalone paragraph at the top (which moved a fair amount of the text from that D.C. paragraph to the top). This method was less wordy in my attempts; we don't really need to know much about the setting until it is a reality for the main characters and I found it was easier to describe with that placement in mind. But I'm admittedly doing this on the fly as I get ready for work. I'd love to drop a line at WT:FILM and see if other editors have any ideas. In any event, I'll come back to this after work today and see if we have new views on inclusion in general or regarding specifics of how to incorporate. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Themes section and mention of Trump

Content was removed in this edit by IP 209.196.218.110 with the edit summary "People referencing the movie to criticize is hardly worthy of being in the Themes section of the film." The edit was then reversed by Doniago.

I just wanted to start a talk page discussion on the edits. To me, the material appears to be adequately sourced to justify inclusion in the article, but I think the IP was accurate in saying it doesn't belong in a "themes" section, as it wasn't a theme that inspired or impacted the writing or production of the film. Instead, as the material covers a post-release event, I suggest creating a new sub-section under "Release" which could address "lasting influence", "lasting impact", "Political impact", or some other consensus agreed sub-heading title. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Legacy"? Oooh, or Fight Club uses "Cultural impact". DonIago (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Idiocracy. 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) 12:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Mike Judge cameo role

I believe that Mike Judge played the Army Officer (a Major, I think) who initiated the hibernation experiment. This was the officer whose arrest for pimping (after his friendship with Upgrayedd went too far) caused the experiment to be abandoned.

If anyone out there could verify this, please do so. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct. That character was played by Mike McCafferty, star of Channel101 shows Quest, The Jogger, and The Con-Time Machine.

I believe Judge is the voice of the I.Q test machine that Jon takes where he guesses 2 buckets. Cartoonist 101 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Marlon Brawndo

CEO of Brawndo was named Marlon Brawndo but it wasn't properly includded in the end credits. Maybe this could go in the cast section or Production section. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Salon article - reliable?

A search through the archives over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard shows that Salon (website) is considered a reliable source, and the fact that an editor doesn't agree with the points raised falls into the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category. Rather if the points are contested - find a source that backs up your theory, rather than just removing it because you don't like it.

Yes, it is an opinion put forward in an article, but so Etan Cohen and David Berry's - the article in this case even uses the term "opinion" when referring to the latter. Sorry that the source isn't to your liking, but that's life. Please discuss here, rather than edit-warring to try and get your way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is reliable and the stated opinion is valid as an opinion, whether we agree with it or not. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The source can be referenced with in-text attribution. However, per MOS:ACCUSED, I would suggest avoiding "accused". Furthermore, it would help to reference similar commentary about eugenics and classism. Regarding eugenics, it appears that Gizmodo and Vice have also written about this aspect of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're referring to the discussion above, it wasn't "an editor", it was three editors. And just because Salon is a reliable source, a free pass isn't created for every op-ed piece to be included. Your local newspaper is most likely a reliable source, but a letter to the editor or "guest opinion" doesn't become reliable simply because they print it. Claiming reliability simply because of where it was printed is overly simplistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I only count two editors, one of whose rationale for removal included use of the phrase "Fuck your Nevertheless. Fuck you all, leftist cunts" - powerful argument indeed.
To compare Adam Johnson to a letter to the editor or "guest opinion" is inaccurate - Johnson has written over 20 articles for Salon, and as Salon has editorial control over content and has been praised by other online media - "Salon.com Wins Credibility Online With Intelligent and Stylish Content"[1] - in this case it seems reasonable to assume that if it's printed, it's reliable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was referring to something else when I mentioned that is was more than one editor. And yes, I would consider this an op-ed piece. It was originally published at Alternet and it's written in the first person. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No one is trying to write, "The film supports eugenics," full stop. It is an opinionated statement, and there is in-text attribution that substantiates the quote. As I mentioned, two other sources have similar comments and can also be included (also with in-text attribution). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I read the article as warning and an indictment of the left particularly this:
I edited the text slightly and moved the article so that it was with the other Trump Era Commentary and not in the Critical response section. -- 109.76.195.16 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump era

Please note, previous Trump related discussion has been archived. -- 109.79.177.91 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The topic of Idiocracy has come up in the news quite often during the era of Trump. There were multiple sources and this was added but removed from the Commentary section. It might need some review and improvement but I don't think it should have been [removed without discussion and I think it should be restored and improved. -- 109.76.195.16 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD. It was a bold move to delete it but deleted content doesn't get discussed so I've reverted and I'm asking for discussion. Too many sources and a paragraph of text were deleted without discussion. -- 109.76.195.16 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Political Bias

The section of Commentary seems to state in a factual manner that Trump's policies mirror ineffective and unintellectual themes of Idiocracy, rather than clarifying that that is what the article in question is making claim to. I believe this needs to be reworded to accurately reflect it is an opinion, not factual, in order to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality. Tradeojax6 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it is pretty cautiously worded already "others expressed opinions". I edited the bit about the Salon.com article to make it more neutral since the author of that article was warning the left against making simplistic comparisons that would alienate people, so that should be providing a counterpoint but perhaps it needs to rephrased again to make it clearer. Maybe the article should explain that Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame (and incidentally Dwayne Johnson is not).
I can understand that because the section includes many left wing opinions it might seem biased but I do think it is accurately presenting those left wing opinions in a fair way.
What if any specific changes to the wording would you suggest? -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I made an attempt to remove a bit of bias from the "Legacy" section and renamed it to better fit the content. Feel free to let me know or change it if you disagree, but I think it retains its meaning without being overtly controversial. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 05:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I restored the WP:STATUSQUO before I saw this comment. I think the recent repeated vandalism doesn't deserve the level of consideration you've shown. The wording "wrestler turned president" was not unintentional, it was quite deliberate. Donald Trump was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2003. This topic didn't get just a few articles, it was covered in Time magazine.[2] and many others. If anything the section is too restrained and doesn't offer half enough explanation, analysis, and emphasis, for the amount of coverage it has received. Also I wouldn't limit the Legacy section to Trump. It has been a big deal but it has hardly been the only time people have compared the state of society to the film Idiocracy.
Trump voters are gonna Trump. Wikipedia editors should do what is best for this article even if it means having to revert and be vigilant. -- 109.79.169.6 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
That seems fair. If the community here agrees that the section is acceptable, which seems to be the case, I am happy to continue reverting the vandals. Thanks!  A S U K I T E   14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Table to prose

I'm just going to note here that the article would be greatly improved by changing the table in the Box office section to WP:PROSE. I'm not ready to do it myself yet, and I don't want to slap a big ugly Template:Table to prose tag on it, so I mention it here in case anyone is feeling enthusiastic and might do it before I eventually get around to it. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

The whole Legacy section is leftist gibberish and a good example of the POV problem that plagues Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:503:1C20:89C1:A2AA:1650:8EE6 (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. The fact is it happened, many leftist commentators and the director and writer of the film made comparisons between this film and Trump and this was all reported in reputable publications. Take a look at Air Force One (film) and enjoy the Trump references in that article instead. -- 109.76.198.1 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
So yes, it is a "fact" that some Hollywood people and leftist commentators have political opinions. This is a common journalistic technique in use today—reporting someone's political narrative (i.e., opinion) and claiming it as a fact in the sense that the person actually said it. Is it really surprising or notable that leftist commentators and the director and writer of the film (i.e., Hollywood types) made comparisons between this film and Trump? I don't think so. IMHO, the Legacy section is merely promoting a political narrative that Trump and his supporters are idiots, and I don't think the section is appropriate for this Wikipedia article. —hulmem (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It received substantial coverage and was picked up by various publications which Wikipedia considers notable. There are more than enough reasons to justify it being there.
The section even includes a commentator who took the point and chastised leftists for being so simplistic about it. You can criticize the comparison but when various commentators including the filmmakers have made such comparisons you can't ignore it or exclude it.
Perhaps the section title "Legacy" sounds too serious but it is not meant to be and that section title is used across various film articles (other potential section titles like "Influence" end up not sounding serious enough)
There's room for improvement and I'd prefer if the section had other references, and think the film was mentioned in politics in other contexts too, but unfortunately I haven't found sources that might allow me to broaden the scope of the section. -- 109.79.82.182 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that it is leftist gibberish because the articles mentioned come from leftist sources. However, since the advent of Obama, people on the right have been using Idiocracy in their opinions for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal17 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Reality has a well known liberal bias. More attempts to vandalize the Legacy section[3] from someone acting a lot like a hurt little snowflake. If there are reliable sources offering other perspectives or analysis of I'd love to add them to the article too. There's simply no good reason to ignore this widely reported perspective on the film, a view that was shared by the writer and director of the film. -- 109.76.147.33 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Film intro in the plot?

It's arguable a synopsys of the first 5 minutes of the film should go into the Plot section. While they don't form part of the main story arc, they set the background for rest of the film, and without this the conclusion makes less sense. A potential paragraph is below that, if consensus is found, could go into the article mutatis mutandis. Viewing the film itself will show that there is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis here, and we should continue to respect WP:Primary. Chumpih. (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see how this is necessary to describe the primary thrust of the plot. DonIago (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Support: It's a memorable part of the film. It sets the trajectory from the contemporary society to the future world where the bulk of the film occurs. Without this context the rest of the plot makes less sense. The theme of this intro is dysgenics, and 'different types of people'. These themes may be unpleasant, and it is because of this that there should be straightforward summary so readers can understand what the debate is about. Indeed, some of the points elsewhere in the article already reference these themes, which are writ large during the intro. This part of the film is significant. The writers and director felt the inclusion was worthy. Despite the constrained budget, the producers of the film spent money on this part . It should be included in the plot. Chumpih. (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

potential paragraph

Human evolution is at a turning-point. Natural selection was no longer rewarding the usual traits of strength or intelligence, and instead was dumbing-down, rewarding those who reproduced the most. A case study: Trevor and Carol (IQ 138 and IQ 141 respectively) remain upbeat while at first delaying, then later struggling and failing to procreate. By contrast, Clevon (IQ 84) cheats on his wife Trish (mother to their several children) with the neighbour Britrney, and later Mackenzie, fathering more children. Even an accident involving a jet ski, an iron gate and his crotch didn't curtail Clevon's reproductive function. Clevon's son, Clevon Jr. (IQ 78) had success on the football pitch and with his female fans, leading to yet more children. Meanwhile Trevor apparently dies of a heart attack in the course of producing sperm for an artificial insemination. Carol's hopes for motherhood seem desperate. However Clevon, through a complicated family tree, was father or grandfather to dozens then hundreds as shown.

WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words. As such there is no room to include a long preamble like this, at least not in the plot section. -- 109.76.129.179 (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

How does this article NOT reference "The Marching Morons"

Seriously - The Marching Morons wiki specifically mentions Idiocracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.73 (talk • contribs)

WP:SOFIXIT? But notably, the part of the TMM article that mentions this film has no references, and I've tagged it accordingly. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Idiocracy/Archive_2&oldid=1168501070"