Talk:Broken Flowers/Archive 1

an issue
I thought Penny's friends were rednecks, not just working class. They were in a rural area. However, I'll leave the article as is for now.

Ending
I added the ending interp. What do you guys think?

I don't think the article needs it. It also attempts to defeat the director's attempt to make the audience think for themselves. I'd like to see it removed.

It is one interp, perhaps not my initial stab, but I came to wikipedia looking for other's thoughts so I was glad it was there to read and consider. After watching the DVD bonus material I had the impression that the director had intended no conclusion, that he was trying to create a Rorshock. I wouldn't mind reading more alternatives.

That's what IMDB's message boards sections are for.

if anyone can find postmodern criticism for this movie, i think that would be helpful. murray definitely seems hypertragic in some ways, and the search for meaning is both futile and at some times absurd and ironic. i think that might be a good way to clean up the interpretation section -- find interpretive criticism instead of plot theory. not to diss whoever did this section first, but i think that wouldn't step on anyone's ideas for how this movie should be revealed. i think there's definitely a spot for plot speculation too, personally. 71.56.70.127 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple of lines onto the end- observations off of the final sequence, where "Kid in Car" played by Homer Murray (Bill's real-life son) makes eye contact with Don. Don't worry, I saved my theories for elsewhere. Adelord 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that pointing out that it's Bill's real-life son makes it sound like the kid in the car is definitely Don's son, so I've added a paragraph saying that the ending is open to interpretation without going into too much detail on what those are.Seantrinityohara (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I back-tracked and read Ending interpretations, now removed. While I see how it may violate the original reseach policy, I don't feel it's overly POV as it's quite clearly speculative. Moreover, I think it's a shame it's no longer present in the article. Just thought I'd share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC) on WIKI pages. For example I#haven't seen any Beegle at all in this film. May be the writer recognized her as somthing like a german car or as maria in rosa roses, but in contact with the possible real son there was just a taxi visible!Bang!--Danaide (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it#s a good idea to find interpretation instead of plot analysis. I#m real fed up with halluzinogene writing

"Lesbian relationship"?
"as Carmen appears to have developed a lesbian relationship with her attractive assistant (Chloë Sevigny)."

I didn't catch that at all. This article has a tad bit of original research.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They were in a Lesbian relationship. It's not gratuitous. It's more subtle - long longing touches on the thigh. I don't like the use of the word "developed" there.

I completely agree with the conclusion of the lesbian relationship. My suspicions were confirmed by the almost hostile manner in which the assistant returns the flowers to Don as he is leaving.


 * Definitely noted in the long thigh touch, Sevigny to Lange after she delived a message out in the driveway, plus her long stares. However, it could be a one-sided affection. BabuBhatt 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the hints of an attraction between Carmen and her assistant. The hints are (a) that the assistant touches Carmen after she has escorted Don to his car and (b) the jealous returning of the flowers, which were an obvious gift to Carmen.

It looks like Dora served grilled tofu for dinner instead of fish as per the plot summary.

Another possible (weak) clue is that Carmen's office has a painted portrait of boy with a dog. This painting appears behind Don's head in some closeups. I say weak because the dog isn't Winston and Carmen's office has another painting, of a girl with some cats. So the paintings may be pure office decoration.
 * To refuse this charming boy mustn#t mean, she is a lesbian. It#s cat style, you know. Like the little male cat told: "I#m hetero and Mo." So she, carmen, lives with this cat in the nearest relation and in a god to her assistant. Don't come with virgin lillies!--Danaide (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ending Interpretations
I do not think the various 'ending interpretations' are appropriate for wikipedia. This movie is very vague, and there could be millions of personal interpretations. Too much speculation here. More appropriate for this discussion page or some message board. Pgc512 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So there are at least two of us. I have removed the section again. If you are able to source any of it from outside Wikipedia, then it can go back. It doesn't matter how many people contributed to it here, if it is original research or speculation, it simply cannot go on the page. If you find any sources, then you can dig the section out of History and put it back in. CRCulver 22:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous IP, Instead of running a voting process, which is not necessary for speculation and original research, I may simply take you to RfA. Incidentally, if you want to actually be a productive editor here, you should get an account. No one likes dealing with anons CRCulver 23:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your nickname is about as anonymous as an IP address, in absence of real name, address, email or background. Regarding productivity, it seems people have already complained about you vandalizing pages in the past. And your Special Contributions page is rather full of controversy. Do I smell a maniac? 82.120.2.250 23:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My nickname doesn't change from edit to edit, whereas your IP address may well do so. Furthermore, you may notice that the people who accused me of "vandalism" where themselves banned or severely warned for things like linkspam, original research, or sockpuppetry. For someone so concerned with protecting a section that has been here so long for no reason, you seem awfully new to Wikipedia and its policies. CRCulver 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about Ending Speculations being original research, I understand both opinions, but the last change made shows the grade of immaturity of your actions. Please change it again, either with Ending Interpretations or without them.--62.43.237.98 09:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed the cast changes in there. I've reverted it to the last correct version, minus the original research/speculation. CRCulver 09:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one am glad someone posted their interpretation. I came here specifically looking for one, and personally hate movies without a defined ending/accomplishment. The interpretation posted, unruined the movie for me. Thank you. 24.150.38.245 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
The vandalism I had in mind was IP 222.153.113.15's edits changing the name of the film to "Monsters Inc. 2" throughout the text. Really Spooky 12:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Main Page
Edit: I changed the son's age to 18 because, in the movie, when Don is reading the letter to Winston, Don says, "My son is now almost 19." Meaning 18-years-old, not 19. I also edited the comment about the vehicle possibly not being a Ford Taurus. The vehicles in the movie are most certainly Ford Tauruses, seeing as how I drive over 20 of them a day at my job. Another clue is the fact that the bus he gets out of at the airport rental car place in the beginning of the movie is a Hertz bus, and Hertz is owned by Ford, and thus primarily rents out Ford Tauruses.

Mediation
Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. Please do not edit this article during the mediation. Anonymous editors, will you please join us and summarize your positions here. Please sign your name using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. BTW I encourage all anonymous contributors to register and get an account. Ideogram 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the various 'ending interpretations' are appropriate for wikipedia. This movie is very vague, and there could be millions of personal interpretations. Too much speculation here. More appropriate for this discussion page or some message board. Unless this is standard wikipedia practice for films: '''To let everyone detail their own personal take on each film? I don't think so'''. Pgc512 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You might try to read through the various Wikipedia policies to try to find applicable guidelines. You could start with WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability.  Ideogram 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

With none of the info being properly cited and sourced, did this matter even need to go to mediation? It's patently obvious that the 'ending interpretations' section is uncited, unsourced, original research. A Wikipedia article is not a movie review. It cannot speculate, theorize, or pass judgment on subjects. Just at a glance, I immediately see WP:WEASEL phrases such as "It seems unlikely...", "The most likely...", "A possible interpretation is that...", and "A similar interpretation might suggest that...", etc., etc. wikipediatrix 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You may wish to post to WP:Village pump to get other Wikipedians to weigh in. Ideogram 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that WP:WEASEL is a style guideline, not a policy, so the best response is simply to find verifiable sources and reference/de-weasel them using the reference. In general, you don't need to delete sections simply because they don't comply with the suggestions at Weasel. (Guideline = wikipedian for "This is the way we'd like it, when possible.") ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted, but please also note that when WP:WEASEL language in an article is not cited and sourced, then it by default becomes a WP:OR matter because there's absolutely no basis for unsourced claims like "Some people say...", etc. wikipediatrix 07:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is just a movie. A movie article is not obliged to reference Maltin and Ebert for every sentence (it could). The section's text is collaborative, converging and generally enlightening. Weasel words could be avoided, but what for? The sole problem is created by a controversial "wikipedian" who brought absolutely nothing to the article otherwise. Go clean the article about JFK death conspiracies.82.120.114.161 01:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for joining us. Please be sure to read No original research for the relevant Wikipedia policy.  Also please read No personal attacks, try to comment on content, not on the contributor.  Thsnks.  Ideogram 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, what a strange comment. First, what do you know about whether someone just joined or not? WP:NOR says nothing about movies. It is allowed to attack actions of a contributor, this is not a personal attack (Crculver does not have any significant content on his personal page, so it would be difficult to comment on him personally). Crculver is controversial - look at his Contributions page, and he brought no content - look at the Article history page.82.120.120.72 10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Most people who have an account have had disputes with other users from time to time and have a reflection on their Talk page (though many occasionally wipe their entire Talk page, I don't) or User Contributions section, especially if they have reverted vandalism before or enforced WP:*. If you look at the Talk pages of people who have complained on my Talk page, you will see that they themselves were warned for vandalism or violation of other policies. As for bringing "No Content", I've brought plenty of content to Wikipedia in my three and a half years here to many, many articles, but the removal of something that violates WP:NOR or any other policy is just as productive an edit as adding something. CRCulver 11:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; (from WP:NOR], original interpretations of the meaning of a movie or section are not allowed, referenced notable interpretations may be allowable.) ~Kylu ( u | t ) ' 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If there were citations, it would not be original research and I would have no complaint. However, the anon IP has not added citations, and is even refusing to do so outright. CRCulver 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my intended audience, CRCulver. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  06:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The section clearly violates WP:NOR as is. If any portion of it can be cited, it must. Clearly Wikipedia has lately come to risk too much citation instead of too little, therefore there should be no problem for the people who came up with this monstrosity of a section to provide such citations. CRCulver 01:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You could as well ask for citations for the Trivia section. "Monstrosity of a section". Now, that is a personal opinion. 82.120.120.72 10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please respect the mediator's request: Please do not edit this article during the mediation.  Otherwise, you look more and more like a vandal. Pgc512 10:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you are right... But then, why should be section be out during the mediation? If people just lose interest discussing this, Crculver will accomplish his goal here.82.120.120.72 10:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to keep discussing as long as you like. Wikipedia encourages this.  Ideogram 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's little more to discuss, really. A few of us think the section should go, the anon IP thinks it should stay. Aren't we done here? CRCulver 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to try to reach a compromise. If you wish to get other people's opinions, you can post a Wikiquette alert or post at the Village pump.  Ideogram 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actually done a Wikipedia mediation before?? You don't seem to be conducting it properly. 82.120.120.72 has demonstrably violated Wikipedia policy in at least two ways now and CRCulver has not, so since when do we "compromise" our policies and articles?  Regardless of whatever "compromise" occurs here, I will continue to remove any further violations of WP:OR I see. wikipediatrix 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not attack the mediator. If you object to my mediation I will be happy to leave and let you seek another mediator or other options.  Ideogram 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't attacking you, I was asking you a serious question. I've seen Wikipedia mediations before and this is nothing like how it's been. And I'm not the one who asked for mediation anyway, this is between CRCulver and the anon IP. Like I keep saying like a broken record, clearcut violations of Wikipolicy do not require mediation. wikipediatrix 04:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Different mediators have different styles. As an informal organization, Mediation Cabal has no fixed rules.  Again, if any participant rejects my mediation, I will have to leave and let you seek other dispute resolution options.  Ideogram 04:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Here is the only compromise that makes sense to me:  move the section in question ("ending interpretations") to this talk page.  Then those who are interested can come here and speculate and debate, etc.. Pgc512 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A reminder: WP:NOR is an article policy, which does not apply when voicing opinions on non-article pages. If you'd like to create an account and post your opinion of the article on your user page, that's fine. If you'd like to discuss it (within reason) on the article talkpage, that's also fine. Articles are any public-facing page, category, or template. Anything else you're free to voice your opinion within reason (see the rules for the specific area). I suggest a compromise of moving the interpretation section of the article to this talkpage and allowing people to compare interpretations interactively. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading and re-reading WP:NOR, and I just cannot find any reference to movies, and more generally art, inside. Maybe this should be made more specific? Or let's take another route: IMHO interpretations of a movie's meaning cannot be "original research" because research concerns exploring a reality, objective and accessible to several people, while a work of art is mostly subjective and personal. It is actually quite a miracle that several people were able to put together a section which is (was) internally consistent.

Overall, I have the impression that the topic discused here does not really have an official policy.

On the contrary, I am pretty sure that people wanting to brutally remove such content are, pardon my french, nothing but common-law assh*les, who use Wikipedia rules as a pretext to exert agression towards other people.

Maybe there should be a specific "movie reviews" wiki site, where interpretations can find a home? A "talk" page talks about the article, while we need to talk about the subject of the article. But it is better than nothing. 82.120.123.78 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR applies to ALL articles. Period. wikipediatrix 04:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There could be a "movie reviews" wiki site, but Wikipedia is not really the place for it. Ideogram 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Anonymous: There is no specific mention of movies because a movie article is just an article. There are no user-facing pages which are exempt from verifiability. Please recall that this is an encyclopedia, not a movie reviews site, and while review sites are free to state whatever they wish about the interpretation of a movie, an encyclopedia is not.
 * Look under the edit box before you post:
 * Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
 * And, from WP:NOR:
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * As you are creating the analysis of content and not citing a verifiable source, it can't be contributed here. I'm sorry. Place the analysis on this talkpage if you'd like, but it does not belong in the article. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and so far it looks as if consensus is agreeing that you're incorrect in your assertations. By the way, check out imdb.com ... they have forums that encourage this sort of analysis. ~Kylu ( u | t )  06:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix has asked me to have a look at this debate. Frankly I don't understand why there's a mediation at all - the situation is plainly that of a user wishing to add his own original research. If it was based on a reliable, verifiable and cited source such as a published critique by an established film critic, I don't think there'd be any problem. However, an anonymous unpublished critique plainly doesn't qualify. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the anon's critique simply doesn't belong in the article. -- ChrisO 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipediatrix must have misrepresented the reality to you (which often happens when trying to get somebody's support or sympathy), but you could have checked the article's history before making a judgement. There is no "anon unpublished critique". The section in question has been written by many people, over a period of several months, many of them using regular usernames, and it constitues a very substantial part of the article's body (and by far its most interesting one). All that happened recently was removal and restoration of content written earlier. Geez... 82.120.123.78 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if one or one hundred people wrote it. Unless it's based on reliable, verifiable and cited sources it has no place in the article. It's as simple as that. -- ChrisO 12:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We haven't had any activity here for three days. Shall I close the case? Ideogram 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, and thanks for a well-done mediation. Pgc512 19:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one am glad someone posted their interpretation. I came here specifically looking for one, and personally hate movies without a defined ending/accomplishment. The interpretation posted, unruined the movie for me. Thank you 24.150.38.245 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit
Reed Martin, a Cambridge, Mass-based film professor, has claimed that the film is plagiarized from a script that he submitted. The case is now approaching court. I was wondering what the best way to deal with this would be. Should the controversy get its own section?Bjones 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Got any valid sources? wikipediatrix 13:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source Frainc 15:08 03 July 2006

Another source on the lawsuit


 * REED MARTIN v. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT ET AL
 * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (WESTERN DIVISION - LOS ANGELES)
 * Case Number: 2:06CV01684
 * Gront (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Producer credits
Jim Jarmusch didn't produce Broken Flowers,

Poster image
I uploaded an alternate poster image to replace the earlier version because it closely matched the image on the soundtrack album cover. — WiseKwai 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Locations
What were the locations of filming? The end credits list several places in New York (including Westchester County) and New Jersey. Badagnani 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Source here. Badagnani 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research
I deleted speculation and unsourced statements using weasel words from the plot summary today. 67.164.115.230 (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A stalker?!
bying roses. Does anybody knows something about this profile? Not written in a stolen script.... There he is a computer man, who voyages in his past. Might it be possible that#s the actors mirrow to the director Jarmush. A stalker who steals scripts doing a real doko. To me the whole film appear like a comedy, a real one either. A script writer being harresed by a film director and his urge to act on stealing. Worsest case in ourdays!--Danaide (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Something incredible happens in the version of that film I saw yesterday. The figure B.Murray played told her, that he is a stalker