Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once

"Absurdist"
I have removed "absurdist" from the lead sentence. We should keep the genres simple in first sentence per WP:FILMLEAD. The lead later goes into more depth about the genres, including absurdism. Popcornfud (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have restored it to the WP:STATUSQUO while a consensus is reached, thanks for starting this discussion. While EEAAO definitely has elements of sci-fi, the best descriptor has always been "absurdist" firstly, given the wild "genre-bending" elements of the film. The quoted NYT review points out well that describing it as a martial arts or sci-film misses the heart and true point of the film, which is more aligned with a comedy-drama. Some sources that call it primarily an absurdist film: the BBC, Entertainment Tonight AP News. Given these sources, I would argue that "sci-fi" is far from the primary genre, and that "absurdist comedy-drama" is a short, succinct descriptor for the lead sentence. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:FILMLEAD says to use "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". We shouldn't say it's an "absurdist" film and a "comedy drama" — that's overloading the lead sentence and gets us into diminishing returns fast. What is the primary genre identified by sources? Popcornfud (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue this is case where the number one thing mentioned about it's genre is that it is difficult to define, and comprised of many different genres. The guideline's do advise that (at a minimum), the lead sentences should include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", but looking at other multi-genre films such as Titanic (1997 film), Pan's Labyrinth, or Alien (film)/Aliens (film) and at the sourcing, exceptional cases such as this I believe deserve a (still very minimal) 3-word descriptor. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; those articles shouldn't be stuffed with genres either. The extent of the genre bending in Everything Everywhere is covered in depth in the lead, along with a philosophical notions including absurdism. I vote for simplicity. Popcornfud (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence should be only for the primary genre. Other genres can be discussed in the lead further down since the "Themes" section goes into more details of the genres, like it should be done in an encyclopedia.  Mike  Allen   00:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling out OtherStuffExists seems to be kind of missing the point of both my argument and that essay on deletion arguments, which isn't that we should never look elsewhere on Wikipedia to find examples of how well-reviewed articles handled complex situations. Aliens was promoted to a featured article with a 3-word genre descriptor just 5 months ago, but that is just an example, not the full argument. In films that bend genre in ways that are discussed frequently in sources, simply adding one extra word can be the best solution. Going with "simplicity" is doing a disservice to the reader's understanding with marginal benefit at best (cutting down a single word count from the lead sentence). A reader's understanding of the film is best served by "absurdist", and calling the film a "sci-fi" film is a misuse of the term. From that analysis by the NYT, "while the hectic action sequences and flights of science-fiction mumbo-jumbo are a big part of the fun (and the marketing), they aren't really the point. [It is] a bittersweet domestic drama, a marital comedy, a story of immigrant striving and a hurt-filled ballad of mother-daughter love." Hence the simple "absurdist comedy-drama". Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

,, Pinging to include users who just made a change related to this discussion.
 * Keep - Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. emphasis added. Absurdist as a sub-genre is apt for this film. Kire1975 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * it says "or sub-genre", not "and sub-genre". Popcornfud (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep absurdist comedy drama - the science fiction elements only serve the absurdist theme of the film. My personal preference would be surreal comedy as there aren't that many drama elements in the movie unless you focus on the acceptance of LGBT people. CABF45 (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this one. The sci-fi elements are part of the film's overall absurdist theme. Surreal comedy could work since there aren't many elements of drama in the film. Edwordo13 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I find "absurdist" used much more frequently than surreal from my searches, so I would still vouch for "absurdist comedy" if drama was cut. But I would also argue that the drama is well sourced and the core of the film. Some examples that show the diversity in what it is labeled, but ultimately led me to "absurdist comedy-drama":
 * NYTimes: absurdist sci-fi comedy drama
 * Vulture: ...a kaleidoscopic fantasy battle across space, time, genres, and emotions, but it’s an incredibly moving family drama first.
 * Vox: multiverse action comedy-drama
 * BBC: absurdist multiverse movie... The comedy can be absurd and wildly funny but is also tethered to real fears.
 * EntertainmentTonight: absurdist film
 * WaPo: absurdist, sci-fi comedy drama
 * ArtNet: comedy-drama... absurdist nature
 * LATimes: surreal...sci-fi action comedy
 * The Guardian: surreal superhero comedy
 * Cerebral726 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just it: "the core of the film" is the very thing we should be after here, not the other stuff. Whatever the primary genre is, just use that. (I'll also note at least one of the sources you list there uses "absurd/ist" more as an adjective than a genre, as in "the comedy can be absurd" and "absurdist nature".) Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per WP:FILMLEAD. Probably the most important aspect, or central theme, of the film. 78.16.238.146 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the general consensus here is to call the film an absurdist comedy, let's just leave it at that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Rule 77 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated last paragraph
The last para of criticism currently reads: "The film's Best Picture Oscar win was mostly praised by the public and industry, but received some criticism, particularly from Cannes Film Festival president Thierry Frémaux, who compared this film's win to the Best Picture win for Parasite"

This is wrong, and not what the source says. Per the source (and other references to the same interview), Frémaux wasn't referring to Everything when he mentioned Parasite – as it is an American film. He was referring to Triangle of Sadness and its ineligibility for best international film, when he mentioned that he thought a film like Parasite should not have been eligible for best picture in 2020. – SJ + 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * if you reread the quote you'll see it is not a critical response to the subject. By all means find and add critical reception to the article; this is just not an example of it. Please restore the change you reverted :) – SJ +  23:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SSSUUUPPPEEERRR late reply, but I did not see this before; lol thanks. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here, this is a clear misreading of the source. The first part of the sentence is also unsourced as the IndieWire article does not support the film being "mostly praised by the public and industry, but received some criticism". Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 10:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another piece of criticism from the Los Angeles Times about the Best Picture win. Maybe this would be useful. We can mention Frémaux by name but not feature his quote from the other source. HM2021 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the genre...
We should just label it a comedy. One thing that remains certain about this film is that it's quite humorous in nature. UPDATE (08/14/2023): Also, everyone at Template talk:Infobox film agreed that this article's intro is stupidly long. —theMainLogan (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — the Main Logan  (t•c) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @TheMainLogan Maybe revert it back as "absurdist comedy-drama" since it has the philosophy of absurdism and surrealism, and some comedic and dramatic elements? DasKlose (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It definitely should be reverted back to that. — the Main Logan  (t•c) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a whole discussion about this on this talk page (right above). The consensus was to keep this in the lead: the film incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist fiction, comedy drama, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, immigrant narrative, and animation. and The film explores philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity.  Mike   Allen   14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Cut some from Armond White including unnecessary ableism
This article had quoted 109 words directly from Armond White's review, more representation than any other critic has gotten in the article. Additionally, the review represents a minory viewpoint (and is not the only representation of that minority viewpoint) so the long quote was quite clearly UNDUE. Finally, this quote includes some unnecessary ableism. Yes, NOTCENSORED, but it's an unnecessarily long direct quote, so I've substantially shortened the amount quoted including removing the ableism. The quote is now about as long as the next longest quote. Possibly still UNDUE but it's in a better state now. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem with that. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Googly eyes
I need someone to add info mentioning googly eyes because there's no mentions of googly eyes in this page. (sorry for bad English) DasKlose (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Done :) MinervaKizyna (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary contains unnecessary analysis
I edited this but it's been reverted, so I guess I'll explain why I edited it (as I disagree with the reversion) - the plot summary contains unnecessary analysis of the themes, e.g. (emphasis mine)

"Evelyn is initially persuaded, and behaves cruelly and nihilistically in her other universes, hurting those around her."

"Evelyn has an existentialist epiphany and decides to follow Waymond's absurdist and humanist advice"

Does labelling of philosophical themes, e.g. nihilism, absurdism, humanism, belong in a summary? I guess the argument can be made for nihilism (which is used colloquially enough in English), but the film doesn't overtly say absurdism or humanism are the philosophies Waymond follows, and it's arguable whether "be kind, even when life does not make sense" is a distinctly absurdist/humanist view (I may as well say "Evelyn decides to follow Waymond's Chinese Buddhist advice"). Whether Waymond is a follower of "humanist existentialism" is analysis of the themes of the film, and not summary of the plot. I think it overcomplicates the plot section and shoehorns European philosophy into it as though it were an explicit part of the film. MinervaKizyna (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that particular philosophical concepts are a central part of the plot, it is helpful to the reader (and other editors have added explicit references in the plot to be accurate about this) to pinpoint key areas in the story where such points come into play. It would be less helpful to leave them out only to be discussed elsewhere (which they already are anyway). The plot is not a word-for-word description of the story, and is does not require the use of the words in the film to describe their effect. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case I can understand how 'absurdist' helps, but I still think 'humanist' is a little too specific - it points to Waymond's worldview as the secular, European belief, where it could equally (in fact, given that this film is about a Chinese family, this may be more likely) be a Taoist, Confucian or Buddhist view. How about something like 'humanitarian' or 'altruistic'? (I'd then also be happy to explain specific takes on that humanitarianism, e.g. the one cited and also some alternative sources I can think of, in the themes.) MinervaKizyna (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored the actual consensus version of this which included a reference for humanism (which you had removed). The film is textbook Absurdist and Humanist (and there are many many references to support that, and editors had left refs in the plot to underline that).  These are general philosophical terms.  Elements of Taoism, Confucianism or Buddism have parts that are Humanist (esp. Confucianism) or Absurdist (i.e. Zen Buddism) etc., but they also contain other things that are not in the film/plot. The philosophical terms are more precise in their meaning. 2001:BB6:5F28:CB00:B11C:F366:F81:4746 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at my edit, you would've seen that I had not removed the reference, I had moved it to the themes (just now edited to fix the duplicate reference you added), alongside other references for alternate interpretations. My point is that humanism refers to a specific Western non-religious belief system, and claiming that the film is explicitly Humanist is excessively specific and Eurocentric.
 * "Elements of Taoism, Confucianism or Buddism have parts that are Humanist (esp. Confucianism) or Absurdist (i.e. Zen Buddism)"
 * Again, this is Eurocentric and arguably backwards. They have things in common, but saying that one has 'parts of' the other suggests that one takes inspiration from the other. My edit in fact changed it to the specific part that they do have in common: humanitarianism.
 * "but they also contain other things that are not in the film/plot."
 * As does humanism: see from the wiki page "Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.". The entire plot is that the main character understands the world via revelation from a supernatural source, and does not rely on science and reason. The only thing it does have in common with the film is the ethic based on human and natural values, hence why 'humanitarian' may be a better fit.
 * I can agree that absurdism and nihilism are general descriptive philosophical terms, but Humanism is a much more loaded term, almost always referring to an entire modern Western non-religious belief system. Calling the film and its plot/characters (the cast section also refers to Waymond's worldview as 'humanist existentialism') explicitly Humanist eliminates the Chinese/Eastern perspectives that are incredibly important to the film. MinervaKizyna (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It does come off as a bit much in the text of the body to analyze and assign specific philosophies to each person; a plot section should aim to be descriptive, and it’s a bit of a small jump and a bit unwieldy to list off schools of thought at once. Some of these philosophies also aren’t necessarily in the film; there’s a very strong secularist, anti-religious element to humanism that isn’t reflected well in the film. I do think you both have points that it’s a bit reductive to name i.e. Taoism but also Humanism. I think more description, like humanitarian, and elaborating more on philosophy in the Themes section than in the descriptive-only plot section would be better. GlassBee (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, the plot/cast should be descriptive rather than prescribing a specific school of philosophy to the characters. I've moved discussion of humanism and other perspectives to the themes section, and chosen less 'weighty' words to describe the characters elsewhere. If anyone has more citations to talk about the film as humanist in more detail I'd love to see them added to the themes section! MinervaKizyna (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MinervaKizyna using sock puppets again I see. 31.187.2.40 (talk) 31.187.2.40 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Big Nose" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Nose&redirect=no Big Nose] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Evelyn Quan Wang character article
I noticed that this article was split/copied off from this article on March 7, seemingly without any prior notice or consensus that is often required per WP:SPLIT unless making a bold split. I don't think anything found there wouldn't be found here, so I'm confused on the splitter's reasoning that was not properly given in the edit summaries aside from the text being contributed to this page. @ICOTEYE, would you like to give your reasoning here?

I'd also like to gather some opinions on if this article should be kept separately from the article or not. Personally, I think this fails WP:FICT since most of the sources I found relates to the film or the actress more than the character, but I might be wrong. Spinixster  (trout me!)  02:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The reception section looks strong, but... the other parts are kind of weak. So maybe borderline keep? Historyday01 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reception section was copied off from this article with a few changes FYI. Spinixster   (trout me!)  14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be okay to have a standalone article about a fictional character (even if they appear in only one film) if coverage of that character would be too excessive in the film's own article. Generally speaking, supporting characters sometimes get standalone articles if they are noteworthy themselves. This does not necessarily mean they have to be the full focus of a reliable source's coverage. If they get WP:SIGCOV, that is enough. It is more about figuring out scopes and redundancy. A film-centric article cannot cover every single detail about a film. A character-centric article can focus more on details about that character than the film-centric article would. Think of film series articles; we are not going to include all the box office and critical reception details for all films in a series-centric article. We keep the details high-level.
 * So here with this film-centric article, there should be a light level of detail about the character, saving the fuller detail for the character-centric article. For example, the "Critical reception" here could focus more about the film's general qualities, where the character-centric article could focus more on what critics said about the character and the actor's performance of that character. The challenge with coverage of a film and its main character (as opposed to supporting) is that there is more overlap than with a supporting character. I do agree that the actual splitting and copying is messy, and content in both articles should be appropriately balanced in scope. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't think that the character is independently notable outside the film, which is required for notability. All the information currently in the character article right now can also be found here, because it is merely an article copy-pasted from the film article with no or barely any additional information. Unless individual notability can be shown, I think it should be redirected back to the film article. Spinixster   (trout me!)  03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage for establishing notability does not mean that the potentially-notable topic needs to be the main topic. Most films' articles will cover its main characters sufficiently, and I think characters and related performances that win awards wind up having a greater level of detail. In general, this character definitely has significant coverage to warrant a standalone article, but the current execution of it is poor. This film's article could have a more general "Casting" scope (meaning that Yeoh-specific content could be in the character's article) and a more general "Critical reception" scope. If anything, the "Critical reception" is a little too Yeoh-focused with not even Quan mentioned despite his own set of awards. I don't care to get my hands dirty with cleaning up this split, but I do believe a character article is definitely possible. For example, I found this that focuses a lot on Evelyn, including a full-focus section in that chapter as seen here. It takes some intentionality and grit to make a good article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Kishotenketsu?
I believe the directors said something about using this story structure, I swear there was a quote... and if so, shouldn't it be added to the article as something notable about the development?--KimYunmi (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)