Talk:Fight Club/Archive 3

Featured Article nomination
Looks better now, might get through this time. Vranak


 * Definitely will not. Not even a Good Article status.  Please review the film articles under WP:FA.  This article is nowhere near Wikipedia's standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New addition to the page
This text has been added recently.

"In 1999, a brazilian med student with mental issues shot to death three people and hurt four other ones in a movie theater while Fight Club was being played. That meant the movie's reputation was severely harmed in Brazil, since part of the press said the excess of violence influenced the killer."

I feel that a). This isn't written in a good style. and b). needs to be referenced. Can the user who added this (200.142.58.19) please do this. Gringotsgoblin 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Gringotsgoblin

Sorry for the way I wrote it, mostly for the "mental issues" part, but my intention was only to put it there quickly for a real Wikipedian to better and expand it, but it is not a fake information. I was just impressed that this case didn't have any media coverage outside Brazil... I didn't put any reference because all those I had were in portuguese... let me give you one good source: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u95219.shtml It's from Folha de S. Paulo, brazil's most important newspaper. The killer's name is Mateus da Costa Meira, if it helps. Be free to search for english references, for other reliable sources and to rewrite the way you prefer.

Trivia
thumb|200px|right|Fictitious Warning Note: Per WP:AVTRIV, this section needs to be cited and integrated into the rest of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A fictitious warning appears when the DVD begins playing telling the viewer to stop the "excessive shopping and masturbation" and start living life.
 * The film makers originally intended Tyler Durden to recite working recipes for homemade explosives. They later decided against it for the interest of public safety, and fake recipes were used, including the recipe for "homemade napalm". In the DVD commentary with the Director, Norton, Pitt, and Carter; The director stated they showed the original scene with all the steps in it to the Los Angeles police squad in order to determine if it was really the directions on how to make napalm. It was.
 * Ed Kowalczyk of the band Live appears as a waiter serving the characters played by Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter in the movie.
 * In 2004, plans were made to create a Fight Club musical, developed by Palahniuk, Fincher, and Trent Reznor. Palahniuk said "We all verbally signed on to do it, but that was two years ago, and we haven't heard anything" in a 2006 interview with The Courier-Journal.
 * Norton's boss eventually joins Fight Club
 * could someone please verify this, I thought it was the boss, just before the group gets together to watch the news regarding the vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatinc (talk • contribs) 10:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Release dates
Is there anything that indicates the notability of any release date besides the first non-festival release date? For something like Casino Royale, I would understand the prominence of having both US and UK release dates. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with Fight Club. If a case can be made for the notability of British and Australian release dates, I would be fine with including them. However, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and the Infobox Film template's syntax guide indicates limiting the release date to the primary one if multi-country release dates are not necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the convention fair enough but I'd re-phrase your edit summery in future to 'Initial date only' or it sounds very US centric. --Nate1481 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll do that in the future. I apologize if you got the wrong impression about my edit. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Differences between novel and film
I would like to remove this section because I believe it is entirely consisted of original research, in this case, editors' own personal observations of the differences between the novel and the film. Any film adaptation will have its differences from the source, and I think if we were to explore the differences, only the most important ones should be mentioned, and these would need to be observed by a reviewer and published by a reliable source. If no one complains, I will import the section here like I did the Trivia section, and hopefully we can restore some content to the article down the road with valid citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sensible option but would suggest leaving a note saying there are differences with a link to the book --Nate1481 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do about that. In the meantime, here's the diff so it can be referenced back for anything useful. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New section?
Are you still writing the new section for the article? You now could perhaps include those references you have found from movie critics linking the movie to the Unabomber ideas.Maziotis 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review?
I am not a contributer to this article, but just reading it, I find that it might be worthy of some sort of promotion. Would the contributers be willing to submit it to Peer Review? Polymathematics 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, not just yet. I have more to add to Themes (not character-specific), such as violence as a metaphor.  I'd also like to rewrite the awards into prose and expand on reviews some more.  Maybe by next week? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure! Feel free to nominate yourself whenever you're ready. Polymathematics 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it was wondered why the film article has yet to undergo a peer review, I'm holding it off until I can get my hands on two books -- "What Just Happened?" and "Rebels on the Backlot", whose information you can see under "Further reading" in the film article. I got a glimpse of some pages of these two books on Google Books, and there is information about the development process, especially controversy over the violent nature of the film. Hopefully, I can retrieve that information soon, expand on Reception a little more, and then finally get some independent opinions on this article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cult film
It seems that Fight Club has been considered a cult film by previous editors (not to mention my peers), but we need to reference this categorization. Here's a citation to start it off: Feel free to add more. Also, something to note: Entertainment Weekly did not list this film in its Top 50 list. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Pitt's best films may be in the future. Fight Club has the makings of a perennial cult movie, fanatically revered by a select band."
 * I'm not sure who the select band is -- Forgive Durden, maybe? This is just one author's perspective, though... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who the select band is -- Forgive Durden, maybe? This is just one author's perspective, though... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actual fight clubs
This Google News Archive Search seems to have instances of fight clubs starting up at Brigham Young University. I'd like to explore this phenomenon more to see where else such instances might have taken place. The information could be part of the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to revisit this... I researched these incidents, and they weren't influenced by Fight Club. However, the media did give these groups the name of "fight clubs" based on the recent release of the film at the time.  So it doesn't seem appropriate to incorporate this into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards and nominations
The following awards were also nominated:
 * the 2000 Blockbuster Entertainment Award for Favorite Action Team (Brad Pitt & Edward Norton)
 * the 2000 Brit Award for Best Soundtrack
 * the 2000 Costume Designers Guild Award for Excellence for Costume Design for Film - Contemporary
 * the 2000 Sierra Award from the Las Vegas Film Critics Society for Best DVD and Best Editing
 * the 2000 MTV Movie Award for Best Fight (Edward Norton vs himself)
 * the 2000 Golden Reel Award from the Motion Picture Sound Editors, USA for Best Sound Editing - Effects & Foley
 * the 2000 Entertainment Weekly Film of the Year Award for Special Effects
 * the 2000 Online Film Critics Society Awards for Best Actor (Edward Norton), Best Director, Best Film, Best Film Editing, and Best Screenplay, Adapted
 * the 2000 Political Film Society Award for Democracy

'''What is the best criteria to determine what specific nominations would belong in a film article? It's apparently that Fight Club was not recognized at all by the most prestigious awards (Golden Globe, BAFTA, etc), so it seems even more unnecessary to indicate "nods" from lesser awards. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?''' —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditch the awards with no articles. There's no shame listing the others since they're notable awards. –Pomte 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think it'd be best to incorporate the awards that have articles as prose, or as a list? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Prose if there is enough content and it can be done without awkward/repetitive sentences, which is less likely. A list presents them in a neater and better readable way. Featured articles like Firefly (TV series) have lists, though it's harder to tell if the other ones had lists while they were nominated for FA status. Fight Club doesn't have enough to need a table like at The Office (US TV series). –Pomte 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Narrator name
Although the narrator is nameless in the film when you put closed caption subtitles on he is listed as "Jack:". I put this on the article but it was removed. Should we possibly create a triva section for this film and add it in there? Daveuk07 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally, we should avoid trivia articles. They don't usually have encyclopedic content.  I don't think that the closed captioning saying "Jack" is that important; as I recall, the screenplay for the film had the name "Jack" for the sake of simple identification, even though the narrator is never called that in the film.  I think it's more relevant to mention that his lack of name shapes his everyman persona. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...as well as prevent the audience from deciphering his twin-personality origins until the proper moment. &mdash;ScouterSig 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am Jack's neglected presence in this article. The book article Fight Club has more mention of Jack from the Reader's Digest scene. I'll look for sources in due time. –Pomte 03:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine
From the Christian Science Monitor: "One of the film's supporting actors said in an interview that If the kids at Columbine high School had a Fight Club to express their anger..." Anyone know something about this quote? –Pomte 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure. The keyword in that quote is if.  From what I read, there wasn't any connection between Fight Club and the incident.  I came across assumptions in some citations that Fight Club was delayed because of Columbine, but it wasn't proven.  Maybe it's true, but the reason I found that Fight Club was delayed was for scheduling reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
Two of the images need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rationales have been added. I cleaned up the rationales for the other two as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review
I've been watching the article grow well and prosper for some time, but the lead has yet to summarise the article. Alientraveller 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do today. I was hoping to add more thematic material and detail about production in the coming month before writing the lead paragraphs, but I guess I'll go ahead and put something descriptive together. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave it a shot, though I don't think I summarized it as best as possible. I wanted to avoid any suggestions about the film's twist, so I couldn't detail too much of the process.  Plus, I think the stuff that I hope to add soon about the controversial production behind the scenes would help add to it.  If anyone thinks they can improve, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation with the lead is to seperate the plot description from production and reception, plus add a tinsy weensy bit on themes, just a little bit, like being a social commentary on whatever. Alientraveller 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll mess with the leads... and my subpage still has stuff to put into the article. Just should be on vacation right now :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
I've failed this for GA, as it's been on hold for more than 7 days. Please renominate if you think the issues are addressed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. The issues still need to be addressed, mainly the thematic elements.  I'll re-nominate it when I finally add it in, and address the recommended fix for the lead as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Issues should be addressed, but I've set up a couple of peer reviews to get more independent perspectives on this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll chip in on the lead which was my first concern. I think the first paragraph is all about the plot and cast, and the second should explore the real world behind the fiction: we need to discuss themes. What is Fight Club all about when we come down to an answer if someone is twisting your arm? Therefore, Fincher's use of cinematography and special effects can sound less odd. Alientraveller 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Women
I'm moving the Women subsection be placed in the Reception section instead. The Themes section is based on what the director intended to represent, where the information in the Women subsection is being interpretative and possibly not the intent of the director and the cast. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved the section, but I was wondering if more information could be provided about H. Giroux? All it says is the author and the university and the date -- is there a specific attributable source to visit?  Also, I would recommend, if possible, that Giroux's criticism is summarized more succinctly so it is not given undue weight compared to the rest of the perspectives about the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that Wikipedia would hold the University of California-Los Angeles Graduate School of Education & Information Studies website in the same high esteem as "Box Office Mojo." If a paper published on the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies website by a guy with a Ph.D. who's been teaching this stuff at University for about 2 decades is not as attributable as that posted on a website named "Mr. Showbiz", then the content referencing the paper on the UCLA site should probably be removed.  As a side note, it appears someone also referenced more of Dr. Giroux's works in the "Further Reading" section.


 * Here's more info on Dr. Giroux, Ph.D.. Apparently he's a "cultural critic" and "critical pedagogue" with a Ph.D. It looks like he spent 6 years teaching at Boston University, did a stint teaching at Miami University in Ohio (where he served as founding Director of the Center for Education and Cultural Studies), held the Waterbury Chair Professorship at Penn State Univerisity for 12 years (apparently also served as the Director of the Waterbury Forum in Education and Cultural Studies), and is apparently now the Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Ontario.  He's no Ebert or Roeper, but he's probably considered somewhat of a subject matter expert on popular culture in some circles.  It appears he's also written more than one article about Fight Club:


 * "IKEA Boy and the Politics of Male Bonding: Fight Club, Consumerism and Violence," (with Imre Szeman) New Art Examiner (December/January 2000/ 2001), pp. 32-37, 60-61.


 * "Brutalized Bodies and Emasculated Politics: Fight Club, Consumerism, and Masculine Violence," Third Text, N0. 53 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 31-41.


 * "Private Satisfactions and Public Disorders: Fight Club, Patriarchy, and the Politics of Masculine Violence," JAC 21:1 (Winter 2001), pp. 1-31..


 * "Ikea Boy Fights Back: Fight Club, Consumerism, and the Political Limits of Nineties Cinema" (with Imre Szeman) in Jon Lewis, ed. The End of Cinema As We Know It (New York: NYU Press, 2001), pp. 95-104.


 * I hope Dr. Giroux's credentials meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and that the UCLA Graduate School programs meet Wikipedia's standards for attributability... SqlPac 02:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, I actually found out more about him after I posed the question. It's just a matter of providing more detail (like the link to his Fight Club paper) to ensure that his credentials are recognized.  Box Office Mojo is something that's been used in a lot of film articles, so it's fairly accepted as a source.  Giroux's work, though, is new, hence the closer scrutiny. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * MrShowbiz.com was an interview with the actors, so the actors were the ones that detailed the thematic elements of the film instead of the website. Also, a funny coincidence -- I've already included one of Giroux's works in "Further reading", the one titled "Ikea Boy Fights Back".  I guess I should have spotted that from the get-go. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have a very good article here, and well-sourced, but I think it should be expanded a bit to mention the Discorian and Anarchist themes that run through it. I think the misogynistic aspect was a pretty big omission - there are only 6 women that speak in the whole movie - 3 of them get one line each, 2 of them are ridiculed by the narrator, and 1 of them is the narrator's primary antagonist and his alter ego's sex toy.  That speaks volumes :) SqlPac 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's quite a few interesting critical papers for the film, but to be honest, it's a bit of a challenge to wrap my head around some of them. It would make an interesting Academic reaction subsection in Reception, if you're game for something like that.  In the Themes section, I've gathered to the best of my ability what the director meant to present to the audience, and it's clear that he's not advocating anarchy or any specific message (at least, I thought that was obvious in what I wrote).  The director himself is quoted to say that the film presents the problems of society, but it definitely does not advocate anarchy or any other approach as a solution.  That's what the audience is supposed to decide.  But in terms of the misogynistic aspect, I think that the existing paragraph that you wrote is of appropriate length (maybe just a wee long) on the topic.  There could certainly be more critical reviews, but I think that the perspectives should be varied -- how the film addresses consumerism, homosexuality, anarchy (even though that wasn't the director's intent, someone might still see differently). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The director might not have meant to address anarchy, but the movie (and the original book) have been embraced by Discordianism. I'll see what I can locate on it and post back when I find something.  Most of the academic papers I've seen on it boil down to pretty much the same thing when you strip away all the pretty language, Tyler Durden-style: the movie is a testosterone-flooded, violent, misogynistic romp, with Discordian themes.  Personally I say it's about time :)  Hail Eris! :) SqlPac 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Special Edition VHS
I know it's a step back with VHS, but I have a special edition fight club VHS with additional footage etc, possibly worth a mention. - The case says "133 minutes plus special features: "On location" making of, Music clip, Behind the scenes footage, Deleted scenes. Peter 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Themes: Rebel Without a Cause
The theme section currently states: "Fight Club parallels Rebel Without a Cause by probing into the frustrations of the people that live in the system. First of all, the source citation doesn't say that.  It says, "Tyler is enigmatic, nihilistic, wildly unpredictable — a rebel with many causes, including pissing in the soup of the diners he serves while working part-time as a waiter."  This statement should be removed from the theme section unless a better source is found. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Erik informs me that the source is accurate, but the link only displays an excerpt. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead
"The two men establish a club for men to express themselves through fist fights, eventually evolving into countercultural missions." I wouldn't call it "expressing themselves"; it's more like male bonding on the surface, and this was merely for initiation into the inner order. And they weren't engaged in "countercultural missions", the term isn't used that way; it's properly termed shenanigans at first, although that turns into outright, radical revolution by the end. In fact, it's interesting to note that the men were not part of a counterculture, but were members of the working class. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't members of the working class form a counterculture by clashing with norms? A hybrid sort of work-for-the-man-by-day, vandalize-their-culture-by-night ordeal. The terms you mention do fit better though. If you can improve the lead any further, please do. –Pomte 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction
"The idea that he has to die is the view subscribed to by those with a morbid fascination with death- a condition that is in itself a mental disease for which they should get treatment"

This line seems odd could it be a missed piece of vandalism?
 * Where are you getting this from? –Pomte 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
Sorry about forgetting to pass it over a week last time. Lead's fine now, in strong shape like the whole article. Alientraveller 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot setup
I would not contest more succinct wording in the Plot section, but by cutting out the discovery of phone calls being made, it's not clear to a reader that has not seen the film but wants to read the plot how the narrator is able to track Tyler Durden down. Also, it is a violation of WP:MOS to place images directly under section titles. It was fine being in the second paragraph, because it was right next to the paragraph of the scene that took place, so fair use rationale is tied as closely as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (bah, edit conflict)
 * I've always put images under headers. I'd appreciate it if I could be pointed to the place which says it's not acceptable.
 * Spoilers might now be "acceptable" in the sense that they're not actively discouraged, but that doesn't mean plot reiteration is necessary. I can't see that I removed anything which make the section particularly less useful; the phone calls thing? It was barely a plot point in the film, but I don't mind it going back in minus all the other expansion. That the article is dwarfed by casting and filming minutae doesn't necessarily mean that the plot section is too short.
 * Chris Cunningham 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure; I was informed by someone that images directly under headings wasn't acceptable. Besides, even if it was acceptable, the current location of the image renders a narrow passage of text between the image itself and the Infobox Film template, which is aesthetically ugly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that depends on your resolution; I'm cursed with a huuuuge monitor at work :) If it's really bad on normal resolutions then I'm fine with moving it, but I'm generally adverse to making semantice changes for the sake of UA problems unless it's seriously detrimental to readability. Chris Cunningham 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the plot detail, it seems necessary because the current version goes immediately from Tyler's explanation to the narrator to the narrator tracking Tyler down. Without explaining the falling asleep, it would be questionable to a reader about what happened after Tyler told the narrator. I've tried to minimize plot detail -- you can see that Marla's scenes aren't so detailed here -- but this seems like a transition that should exist for consistency's sake. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shots applied
From the director in Film Comment: "We had tons of little rules about Tyler. Tyler is not seen in a two-shot within a group of people. We don't play it over the shoulder when Tyler gives him an idea about something that's very specific, that's going to lead him. It's never an over the shoulder shot, it's always Tyler by himself." Feel free to correct the wording to fit this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Real world fight clubs
I've expanded a list at Fight Club in popular culture. If the list gets deleted, could it be merged here? While most fight clubs are inspired in large part by the film, some of the inspiration is unverifiable and a reader interested in reading about them may look more so in the "in popular culture" article, as these fight clubs generally deviate from the film's portrayal of fights. The "in popular culture" article can also be renamed to Cultural impact of Fight Club or some better name. –Pomte 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eek. Please no. This has WP:SYN written all over it. Chris Cunningham 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is arbitrary how some groups are called fight club, they're verifiable and constitute a coherent topic of people (and flies) fighting each other unprofessionally. Perhaps Fight club (concept) or Underground boxing then. The paragraph currently in the article under the #Release section ought to be refined anyhow. –Pomte 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What might be better is some kind of commentary about how such activities may not have been inspired by the film, but instead how the media has given these activities the label of "fight club" due to the perceived similarity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That was touched upon, but personally I wouldn't elaborate on how the media makes presumptuous connections as it is in their nature to do so and it happens often.
 * I didn't have access to any of the non-free journals I cited as I found them with Google News/Scholar and kept searching with specific sentences to unveil more sentences, etc.
 * I have lost my revision of Fight Club in popular culture, though you can of course ask for temporary undeletion if you think those sources might be useful.
 * When I have time I'll see what I can find through my university. –Pomte 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

penis
Why is there no reference at all of the subliminal picture of a penis the second before the end credits come on? I think it's relative as a Tyler-lives-on kind of thing. Would it be appropriate to make mention of the shirt Tyler wears at the end with all the porno all over it? It's probably not right for the article, but I don't know the director mentions it in the commentary, and how Fox said they're going to have to do something with it like blur it for the trailer. At least the penis thing should be mentioned in the article. It's almost as important as the other 4 subliminal flashes during the feature. ChesterG 08:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any attributable sources about the subliminal image are welcome. I haven't really found anything beyond the occasional reviewer's comment on the scene; it's seemed more like an Easter egg, from what I can tell.  If you can provide any coverage, please do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He is right. There is a penis just before end. --89.142.133.195 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To revisit this, I swear I came across something that mentioned this. I don't know if it was from the director or an academic study.  I'll have to track it down, but with the real-world context, this could be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

someone should submit this page to that "featured article" thing.
if this is considered a "good" page. Chegis 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I contributed a lot of the content in the article, but I am looking to add academic studies to the article. There's actually been quite a few ranging across different subjects, and it would be good to have that critical analysis section in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I repaired the mangled articlehistory, removed the malformed FAC from the WP:FAC page, and archived the old fac. Editors building articlehistories might want to download Dr pda's articlehistory script and review the instructions at. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weird, not sure what happened. Thanks for the fix, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews
Reviews to utilize. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * School of hard knocks

Copyedit
I'd be inclined to start by trimming down the article's lead. It's far, far too long, and contains an odd mixture of information, much of which (e.g. production details) would be better off elsewhere. I'll have a go myself if I find the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another editor considered the production paragraph to be particular "meh". I guess he was right. :)  I'll try again to rewrite it, but how should I usually structure the section in terms of major points and minor points?  I probably tried to write it chronologically in a very compressed manner.  This article is probably one of the more extensive film articles, so I wasn't sure how to ensure that the lead section can serve to be a concise overview of the article.  Ideas would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, just as a quick-shot (I suppose I should do some work today), I've only looked at the lead thus far, but I concur with the other editors who've suggested a more concise version, especially with regard to that second paragraph. Partly this could be achieved by more economical wording of what is already present, partly by removing statements which seem out of place or are too detailed for what is essentially a summary of the article. My suggestions: First paragraph Second paragraph Third and fourth paragraphs
 * "The novel was optioned by producer Laura Ziskin, who hired Uhls to write the script for the film." - in my opinion, this is too much detail; it's enough to say that Uhls wrote it, with the detail coming later in the development section.
 * Similarly, the statement about Fincher's working with Uhls to develop the script and "seeking advice from others in the film industry and his own cast members" could be incorporated into the mention of Uhls in the lead, shortened to merely mention Fincher's contribution, or omitted altogether, again to be included in the relevant section in the body of the article.
 * "Major actors and actresses were considered by the studio to help promote the film." - would this not be true of most films? It feels like padding.
 * "Production of the film was considered an arduous task, involving 300 scenes, 200 locations, and complex special effects. Fincher initially filmed an amount of footage that was three times the average in the industry." – I suggest a shortening to merely reflect the arduous nature of the shoot and the amount of footage shot (e.g. "Production was arduous, with Fincher filming three times the amount of footage usual in the industry," again leaving the fine detail over the number of scenes and locations to the article body.
 * "The director also introduced a visual style to Fight Club that would match its tone. He collaborated with cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth to take advantage of lighting techniques to capture the mood for the film." – is there any way in which this differs from the usual description of the cinematographer's job? If not, I would lose it.
 * "Additionally, Fincher implemented several scenes that used extensive special effects, including an introductory scene in which the viewer is drawn out of the neural network of the protagonist's brain. The director also utilized effects to further support the film's visual style and to set certain thematic cues." – consider losing the example of the introductory braintrip (unless it was especially singled out at the time) and merging the first and second sentences.

I hope you won't be too offended by my other suggestions; you've done great work here. Best regards, Steve  T • C 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These are excellent and need little attention.
 * Not at all! It's constructive criticism.  I suppose I felt the need to cover the extensive Production section as there are very few film articles on Wikipedia with as much detail as I've found for Fight Club.  It was just a challenge to summarize the section because a lot of it are compilations of factoids.  If I try to be ambiguous, it's too vague (like duh, all/most cinematographers help out with lighting).  If I try to be detailed, it's too unnecessary for the lead section (like the 300 scenes/200 locations).  I'll have to see about addressing these concerns later, as I have some real-life priorities to address at the moment.  I appreciate you taking the time to comment on the lead!  If you weighed in on the rest of the article, that would be appreciated, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To this untrained eye, beyond a couple of minor language fixes, the rest of the article looks just peachy; it's the lead that needs the most attention. The flow of the article is good, in terms of the chronology of development and production and that unquantifiable quality, "feel". The only other section which could maybe do with some trimming is the plot summary; I reckon it could stand to lose a hundred and fifty words and a couple of slight lapses into interpretation. Do you want me to take a quick run at that? You can always revert if you think I've removed too much. Best regards, Steve  T • C 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was actually planning to revise it before the future nomination. I wrote the Plot section a while ago, and I was aiming to re-word it more concisely.  Give it a shot! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The trimming is very much appreciated! I am planning to introduce an Interpretations section, which will most likely be its own article, Interpretations of the film Fight Club which I'm developing here.  I'm focusing on the film because the novel's article Fight Club already covers thematic notions, but perhaps it can be expanded to encompass both in the future.  Literature and cinema won't always have the same interpretation, even if they're the same plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an impressive list of reference material you've got there; I wish I had the time to be able to devote so much effort to projects like that (my son sees to it that I don't). Good luck with it, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need a fresh pair of eyes on anything. Steve  T • C 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit II
I am starting a new section for the sake of organization and clarity.

Development section-

Questions and comments:


 * 1) Did the screen reading last six hours? or was it the initial script?
 * 2) I like to eliminate short sentences and combine with conjunctions. I have done that here.
 * 3) Please read the "Development" section and comment on things you like/don't like/would like.
 * 4) Overall very well written, no repetitive wikilinks (thank you!).

Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The screen reading lasted six hours. It took place so the producers could get an idea of how long the film would be, then cut down on the elements from there.  Your copy-edits look great so far!  Definitely cleans up the prose.  And cheers about the wiki-linking -- though, I wanted to ask, is it appropriate to wiki-link again in a new subsection?  Like the first instance of the director's name in each subsection, or just the whole section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure; I know the guideline is to wikilink at the first occurrence. For shorter articles, each should only be linked once. For longer articles such as this, it's my impression that it's up to the writer's discretion to wikilink again later on. I will find out and get a definitive answer. --Malachirality (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unimaginative Username directed me here; basically, it is editor's discretion, with the suggestion being to only link where the reader might want to digress and find out more about definition, context, etc. I would suggest, at most, linking at the first occurrence, and then linking at every other main section. --Malachirality (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On this point, one helpful rule of thumb is to link once per "screenful" i.e. one and only one link to a given article should be visible at any one time while scrolling through the article at a standard resolution. Skomorokh  incite 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with linking once per main section, as they're pretty distinct from each other. I imagine David Fincher doesn't need to be wiki-linked in every subsection of Production.  Thanks for looking into the matter, Malachirality. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More questions (for "cinematography"):


 * 1) Is cinematography "shot" or "performed"?
 * 2) The director avoided "Stylish camerawork." Did he also avoid placing the camera in a fixed position? or did he place the camera in a fixed position instead of stylish camerawork?
 * 3) When Tyler appears in the back and out of focus, does this only apply to the scenes before Norton's character meets him? Or does he continue to appear this way off and on for the rest of the movie?

Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say "performed" because cinematography is not solely dependent on the usage of the camera, where "shot" would apply. Cinematography also uses lighting to set the style or mood for a particular scene.
 * In this context, "stylish camerawork" meant filming the fights in a way that it would look "cool". Let me see if I can retrieve the particular passage... "The film's fight scenes also adhered to Fincher's realistic aesthetic. Deliberately avoiding flashy camerawork and refusing to stylize the skirmishes, the director elected to take a more objective view of the fights, often locking the camera down to a fixed position."  Perhaps that'll help clarify the usage.
 * Yes, it only applies for scenes before the narrator meets Tyler in person. After the meeting, the two shots and the over the shoulder shots were done to conceal the twist.  I guess the passage can be re-ordered.
 * Let me know what else you may need to know! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason "performed" always reminds of surgery or something. If it doesn't bother you, I've changed it to "direct" (execute would also work I guess). On a different note, I'd just like to remind you that LOCE only ce stable prose. What are you doing with the critical interpretations is totally fine, but just make sure that the section itself, and any section from which text is added or removed, is stable by the time I get there. I'd also rather not have text removed from the sections I've already ce, if at all possible. Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That terminology works for me, too. For the critical interpretations edit I recently performed, I was actually trying to "straighten up" ahead of you. :)  The professor has a lot to say about the matter (with three studies I've found so far about the film), so I didn't want him to solely be presented as a soundbite in opposition to the feminist author.  The interpretations section that I hope to add will likely be a summary of a spin-off article, considering how many resources there are to implement.  It won't require any changes in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, can you save the "Critical reaction" section for last? I'd like to ensure that there's enough critical reaction covered, especially internationally.  Would this be a problem for the stability of such a section?  I doubt that there'd be serious contesting for whatever changes I make. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Malachirality (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a general need for a tad more specificity here IMO. From a cursory glance:


 * 1) what are the techniques first experimented in se7en and the game (cinematography section)?
 * 2) how did the movie end up with Dust Brothers instead of Radiohead? was on the part of the the band or the movie?
 * 3) A clearer sense of time, if at all possible, also wouldn't hurt. When did Art Linson come on board (either month and year or a time period of how long it took him to get on board)? Also, if people weren't all hired at the same time (I recall, specifically, two screenwriter hirings taking place at different times), dates might be good also.

Above section only applies to FAC considerations, and really just my personal FAC nitpicking. It's more or less trivial, but a good thing to have over at the nom, and incorporating the information (such as question 2) is often just a matter of one word or phrase. --Malachirality (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't have very many specifics for you. Here's my attempt:
 * The techniques do not seem specified: While discussing the look of Fight Club, Fincher and Cronenweth elected to continue on the visual path that the director had begun exploring on Seven and The Game. "Fight Club is a reality-driven picture about Edward Norton's daily nine-to-five doldrums," Cronenweth details. "In all of the 'normal' reality situations, the look was supposed to be fairly bland and realistic. For the scenes when he is with Tyler, though, David wanted the look to be more hyper-real in a torn-down, deconstructed sense—a visual metaphor of what he's heading into."
 * I'm not sure if it was specified why Dust Brothers was instead pursued -- another editor provided comprehensive notes from the film's DVD commentary for me, but the director apparently "pushed for Radiohead".
 * For Art Linson's involvement, I don't think I can specify dates. The producer didn't express interest when the project surfaced in 1996, but after the director was confirmed in August 1997, he got involved, leading to the casting of Brad Pitt.  I may need to retrieve Rebels on the Backlot again, but I recall doing my best to incorporate details.  I've been a fan of dates to establish a  chronology for production, so I think I would've included them if they were available.
 * Sorry I can't be of much help here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Visual Effect
 * Sorry to ask so many questions, but what is Pixel Liberation Front and (more importantly) how is it related to VFX, Fincher, or Haug?
 * "One of the beginning scenes": is the Mayhem equipment "lining" the street, or like "littering" the street/parking lot?
 * I forgot; do the buildings being demolished belong to credit card companies?
 * Do we need citations for the quotes "sort of shiny" and "smack-fiend patina"? Can you explain that second quote?
 * Wikilinks or context is needed to better explain the techniques used in altering the footage.
 * Good to see visual effects straightened up! Here's some answers:
 * Pixel Liberation Front is just a company that provided previsualized footage for the filmmakers. It doesn't need to be mentioned.
 * To be honest, I think I'm wrong about the "streets" bit. From what I recall, the camera swooped down from Tyler and the narrator in the upper level of some building down to under the ground in an underground parking lot, where there were vans with the explosives inside.  I don't think they were in the streets.
 * Yes, the intention was to destroy the information that the credit card buildings and reset everyone's debt to zero. (Of course, the film overlooks the fact that the data is likely backed up in other places, but that's not worth mentioning here.)
 * The citation for that passage (Film Comment) has the director explaining it that way, so I quoted it. I assume that "smack-fiend patina" means to look like a smack fiend, like Marla Singer does here.  Here's the specific passage, spoken by the director: "Lurid was definitely one of the things we wanted to do. We didn't want to be afraid of color, we wanted to control the color palette. You go into 7-Eleven in the middle of the night and there's all that green-fluorescent. And like what green light does to cellophane packages, we wanted to make people sort of shiny. Helena wears this opalescent makeup so she always has this smack-fiend patina, like a corpse. Because she is a truly romantic nihilistic."
 * Yeah, the whole visual effects section was difficult to write with a lot of technical jargon used. I tried to implement what I thought would be encyclopedic, but I assume you're referring to sentences like "adjusted to be underexposed, resilvering (lower-scale enhancement) was used to increase density, and high-contrast print socks were stepped all over the print".  We can make the explanation of what they did to the footage more ambiguous, since it's tough to succinctly explain the jargon.
 * Let me know if there are any follow-up questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 2: The streets are practically empty, and we see them in a blur. The focus is on the explosives in the underground parking lots. –Pomte 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Malachirality about the Giroux quote being hidden, I am looking to write an interpretations article (see here), and I was planning to incorporate a better expansion of Giroux due to the very in-depth academic perspective that he has to offer. Feel free to remove the passage outright, though -- I have what I need on my subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Zen
What, mention of Chinese reducation camps, but nothing on Zen? The film is loaded with Zen references, e.g. when Meatloaf turns up on the doorstep and is told to go away... that's a parallel to the entrant to the Zen monastery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.42.124 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Zen would be great to add to the article, but we need a reliable source about its presence in the film. We can't just plug the reference into the article, per Wikipedia's policy of no original research. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Zen monastery methods, but here are a couple of quotes:


 * "The film has no idea how to solve its ideology and at times comes off like a haute-couture bully in its Zen materialism."
 * "On a business trip he meets a strange dude who's Zen-like yet brutal, named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler's philosophy is that "it's only after we've lost..."

–Pomte 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, these don't really seem to explore the connection of Zen and Fight Club. They seem more like contemporary descriptions based on the popular notions of the topic.  I have a few academic sources that I want to incorporate in an "Interpretations" section, some being spiritually based, so maybe something like Zen will be in them. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His Zen poem. "All the worker bees are free, the queen is their slave" (just a bad attempt at paraphrasing). Dont know if it qualifies as a "Koan" (short Zen saying/story to induce/create a "Satori" (small awakening). cheers. -- El Zid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.0.164 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Subliminal Imagery
Did no one else notice two instances of Tyler Durden flashed on the screen in a red leather jacket? Before the scene in the airport when Brad Pitt crosses paths with Edward Norton, there are two flashes of Tyler Durden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zion007 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fight Club (film): "Durden is also present in single frames of the narrator's scenes before the narrator actually meets Durden,[11] appearing in the background and out of focus, like a 'little devil on the shoulder'.[15] Regarding these subliminal frames, Fincher explained, 'Our hero is creating Tyler Durden in his own mind, so at this point he exists only on the periphery of the narrator's consciousness.'[24]" That what you mean? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the 5 frames found in the film if anyone needs them; http://ticpu.net:8080/~jerome/pics/fight_club I should also warn you the fifth picture is the last frame from the film which consist of male genitals. TiCPU (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know if there is room to include it in the article, not to mention that it has the time stamps on it. If we include a screenshot, we should use one without the time stamps. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just though that instead of typing it in text, it would be easier to take it directly from the media player, but I can get you pictures without them. TiCPU (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

featured article candidate
I am adding this article to FAC procedure, it is one of the best articles I have seen on wikipedia in months. --Have a nice day. Running 00:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have withdrawn the nomination... (I would love to help Erik with the article, but I don't have much time for that :---Have a nice day. Running 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed stuff
I just fixed a few spelling mistakes. Nothing major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.35.49 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

John Zerzan
While another editor and I agreed some time ago to mention Zerzan in the article, I feel that after re-formatting the "Critical reaction" section, John Zerzan is now the only person who mentions the film in passing compared to all the figureheads in that section. Janet Maslin of The New York Times, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, Jay Carr of The Boston Globe, David Ansen of Newsweek, Richard Schickel of Time, David Edelstein of Slate, Jeff Vice of the Deseret Morning News, and feminist author Susan Faludi all devote an entire article to the film. Whereas Zerzan only mentions it in passing toward the end of a 500+ word essay (online copy of the reference in the Wikipedia article): "And it is even showing up above ground, in films like Matrix and Fight Club..." Considering that this sparse mention contrasts the full coverage provided by the other figureheads I mentioned, I think that the sentence is undue weight and should be removed from this specific section. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We should look for other "neo-luddite", anti-industrial references to expand this section on that theme.Maziotis (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Try looking at my subpage and see if there's any possible themes. I'm not sure about the ones you mentioned specifically, but there's masculinity and consumerism in most of these resources.  It'd be better off in a "Interpretations" section rather than the "Critical reaction" since Zerzan's mention isn't really a critical reaction but more like commentary of long-lasting impact. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This does seem, unlike the other items in the section, to be somewhat of a passing reference. Further, I'm unconvinced that Zerzan's view represents a significant point of view.  He's just this guy whose main notoriety stems from his befriending of a mass murderer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HORRIBLE
HORRIBLE Plot Description!!!
 * WP:SOFIXIT. скоморохъ  03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

7 Years in Tibet
You can see '7 Years in Tibet' is playing in a theatre before Marla gets on the bus. It's also a Brad Pitt movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.10 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but do you think it really belongs in an encyclopedic article? It's not a very important detail, and I'm sure that it already has a fine home at the film's trivia page on IMDb. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack
In this article, as well as the Edward Norton article, Edward Norton's character is described as nameless, or simply called the narrator. According to the official website (although its not too clear), the characters name is 'Jack'. I changed one instance from 'the narrator' to 'Jack', I'm not sure if the whole article should be reviewed and/or changed? Fionaalison (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Fight Club (film): "The narrator was written to be nameless in the film, although he is identified in the script as Jack." In the context of the film, he's never truly identified, though it has probably been easier for him to be referred to outside the film as "Jack".  I think it's appropriate, at least within the boundaries of the Plot section, to reflect that he is just a nameless narrator. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Erik. You'll have to supply a source for that, as it goes against all the previous sourcing and consensus. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rules of fight club
I've added a quote box listing the rules of fight club after finding a citation that mentions the rules as one of the most quoted monologues in cinema. What do other editors think of this? Is the quote box too much? Is there another way to present the information? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's anything people recognise/remember from the film, it's at least those first two rules. Any section on the film's cultural impact would be incomplete without referencing them in some way, and a quote box seems like the best choice to me too. Steve  T • C 08:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what about the formatting of the quoted monologue? I get the feeling it wouldn't be acceptable per WP:DASH.  Maybe I could copy how the English subtitles of the DVD write it... — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the dash would definitely be commented upon by certain unnamed parties when it comes to FAC. How about simply replacing the dash with a colon? How does the DVD present them? Steve  T • C 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have to take a look. I copied the quote from elsewhere online, so the particular formatting may not be accurate.  I think it's pretty safe to say that "fight club" remains lowercase; all the evidence points to this formatting in both book and film.  I'll fetch the DVD after this weekend to make the appropriate changes. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Homoerotic" analysis
Edward Norton states in the DVD commentary that the film had no intentions to portray anything homosexual, and that he didn't understand why the gay rights groups were trying to paint it that way. Quit trying to turn this into a gay thing just because there is a guy taking a bath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.245.100 (talk • contribs)


 * Relax. There's no attempt here to "turn it into a gay thing", whatever that means. It's an analysis. And as it's one which stems from the intentions of the makers, it's relevant to the article. Steve  T • C 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By "turn it into a gay thing" I mean assign an intention of homosexuality where there is none. But you know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.245.100 (talk • contribs) 19:20, May 7, 2008


 * What the creator of an artistic work intends does not necessarily matter. Though the creator may intend a particular interpretation, outsiders can provide their own interpretations of that work.  I would suggest reading the article intentional fallacy.  There are multiple academic studies addressing the themes of masculinity as well as other themes like temporality and spatiality.  There is still critical analysis to come about all of these themes.  We report all reliable interpretations neutrally.  You and others are welcome to disagree with what others interpret or even how the director wants you to interpret.  The article's just presenting the various views and letting the readers surmise their own conclusions. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
I recently made this change. Per MOS:QUOTE: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." I've maintained the link by wikifying the subsequent use of the term. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That works. Thanks, Viriditas. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of Tyler as an anarchist
Over on the List of fictional anarchists there has been movement to try and add Tyler Durden to the list on the basis that reviews for the film described the character as such. Unfortunately, none of these citations referred to source material, and so Durden is still technically not admissible. However, it may be useful to reference this interpretation in the critical reception section. Here are the three citations provided. I hope an editor who is more familiar with this article will know how best to integrate this information. --Cast (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)




 * As the editor who came up with the above references, I think we may want to weigh their reliability given that this article is shooting for FA. I'd probably prefer to wait for stronger sources in order to say anything substantial about anarchism. Could be enough for a statement like "Durden's ideology has been interpreted as having elements of fascism, anarchism, nihilism etc." though. Skomorokh  01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There may be substantial coverage about Tyler Durden's role at my interpretations subpage. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Narrator
The article describes the main character as a nameless narrator. However, according to the back of the DVD cover, the narrator's name is "Jack".

Norton stars as Jack, a chronic insomniac desperate to escape his excruciatingly boring life.

Maybe he should be referred to in the article as Jack, not The Narrator? 117.20.67.250 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The narrator is not explicitly identified as Jack in the film; he is intended to be nameless. See the end of the first paragraph in Fight Club (film).  For purpose of the plot, he is identified as the narrator, and for the sake of consistency, is thereafter referred to as such.  We've had previous discussions if you look above this one. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that maybe the section should be rewritten or at least mention the fact that Norton's character finds some writings by the organs of a person named Jack and from then on becomes a theme, thus tying in the movie and making the DVD cover's description more accurate. -Darthjarek (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source that interprets the significance of this recurring theme, we could see about working it in. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

penis in one frame
i was watching fight club, and towards the end it had a weird flicker, so i went back in slo-mo and there is a picture of a penis! why isn't it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.200.243 (talk • contribs)


 * Probably because it lacks decent real-world coverage from a reliable source, and is really nothing more than an in-joke. Maybe if a decent secondary source could be rumbled up, it could be included (at a push), but I personally don't see a need for it. Steve  T • C 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steve, there does not really seem to be a need for it. It's not related to the overall plot of the film, and it's more of a small detail referring to Tyler's porn-splicing duties to tease the audience at the conclusion.  I have not seen any coverage about the frame that does not mention it more than in passing, so there does not really seem to be a spot in the article for it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jared Leto
Jared Leto is not mentioned in the article. 89.146.79.216 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have a starring role. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood version?
What about this version? Fight Club (2006) Director: Vikram Chopra Written By: Vikram Chopra, Sohail Khan, Mayur Puri Music: Pritam Chakraborty Choreography: Bosco, Cesar, Remo Starring: Sohail Khan, Zayed Khan, Dino Morea, Aashish Chowdhry

Yes, there is dancing and rampant consumerism in this version. Tim Chuma (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But is there soap? Seriously, don't worry about it. That film already has an article. All the best, Steve  T • C 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's covered in the disambiguation page. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Over the shoulder
The article currently claims that Tyler is not pictured in over the shoulder shots, which is simply wrong. Roughly 36 minutes into the film, after the line "Can I be next?" the camera swivels into a shot over the narrator's shoulder. This seems to be mentioned elsewhere in the old copyedit discussion. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that it applies only to scenes prior to the narrator actually meeting Durden. However, that I think Durden is only in the opening scene (and the 1-frame snippets) prior to that, so it seems to be a weak claim. A better one might simply be that Durden is not included in any two-shots or over-the-shoulders in the opening scene. However, I this is also simply wrong, as the opening scene contains a shot of the narrator's face with Durden walking away (ironically, positioned over his shoulder). The only claim that I can see being plausible is that Durden's face isn't show during the opening scene. This is far, far removed from 'no two shots or over the shoulders (in the whole film)' which is the way it stands now. Tofof (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the section to be a little clearer. It's not that there are no over-the-shoulder shots, but that there are none in scenes of a specific nature. As per Fincher: "We don't play it over the shoulder when Tyler gives him an idea about something that's very specific, that's going to lead him." Hope this clears it up. Steve  T • C 09:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from reader's POV
"Durden is also present in single frames of the narrator's scenes before the narrator actually meets Durden...."

Is this referring to when you see like a split second of Durden before him and the narrator actually meet? I came here looking for an answer, so if anyone answers, thank you!......I know this sounds vague, if only there was screenshot of what I'm talking about....

75.72.213.199 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what it means. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 07:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Novel's author in Infobox Film
I do not think that the film infobox needs to mention the novel's author, and for a couple of reasons. First, it is not an attempt to suppress Palahniuk's good name; he and his work is identified in the "value-added data" of the lead section, where the fields in the infobox are more focused on the basic details of the film. Secondly, I know that other film articles have listed the source materials' authors in the film infoboxes, but the presentation has always been awkward, using boldface again after the bolded field title or clarifying the separation with parentheses (e.g., "(screenplay)"). Unless there is a better solution, it is more functional to avoid such pushing a square peg into a round hole. — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this not the format normally used? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is more about editorial preference, and I've tried to provide a couple of substantial arguments about why they should not belong. You'll see these more often than not, Darren... maybe I'm just trying to buck the trend?  I don't think that such details fit, the way the infobox is set up.  We can see the author of the source material, but not the source material itself, which contributes to the unorthodox fit.  In your example, we see the author's name, but we have to refer to the lead section to get the title, anyway.  I believe that it would be best to clearly write out such information in the lead section since there is a most comfortable fit there.  What do you think?  Feel free to disagree. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, I think that this is too much of an "easter egg" that could be either a link to the novel article or the Fight Club article. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going by what I have seen before, but the infobox does look cluttered and given the amount of links in the lead we are leaning towards overlink. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that there is a better way to handle such credits? I know that someone attempted discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film, which has not unfortunately not taken off. It seems tricky to try to link to the source material and avoid Easter eggs in the infobox, especially with works that have long titles. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Erik's points about having an uncluttered infobox have merit, and Palahniuk is mentioned prominently in the very first sentence of the lead. To keep the infobox to the quick-reference guide it is meant to be, the argument that a film article's infobox should only display the name of the writer of the film is a logical one. Then again, Palahniuk's influence on the film is plain; this was no unfaithful adaptation. This is in danger of developing into a slow, unhealthy edit war. Is there a compromise position that might satisfy both? FunkyVoltron? Steve T • C 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just thought that the way that we approach the  field has been akin to trying to put a square peg in a round hole.  I know that it is pretty common to do this with film articles, but I've never been gung-ho about how we try to sub-categorize in a field that really should be text directly tied to the field.  I guess my thinking was that on one hand, it's not enough clarification to just say the source material's author, yet when you try to work in the source material through a wiki-link, you run into awkward linking.  I thought to cut the Gordian knot some time ago by just having the screenwriter (though David Fincher should be added since it's cited that he was involved).  I'll concede the matter for now, but at the eventual FAC process, I'll ask for input.  Disagreements like these are tricky to resolve since it revolves around a relatively small formatting issue that has little room for middle ground. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nameless protagonist
The film, directed by David Fincher, follows a nameless protagonist (Edward Norton) I realise that he isn't referred to by a name, until very late in the movie to preserve the twist, but in his internal monologue he refers to himself as Jack. e.g. "I am Jack's smirking revenge." Does this still count him as a nameless protagonist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daff42 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For purposes of describing the film on a basic level, I don't think it would count. The "Writing" section says that in the film, he was intended to be nameless, though in the script, he was identified as Jack.  I think it would be a little too confusing to suddenly switch from "the narrator" to "Jack" just because he started referring to himself as such.  Also, it could be argued that he is not really Jack, since he references "Jack" and "Jill" from the Reader's Digest he found in the Paper Street home. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always found that curious, however. The actual names in the Reader's Digest articles were "Joe" and "Jane", some of which were published later as I Am Joe's Body. I wonder why, if the reference was based on RD, that the name wasn't use - copyright problems with "He is Joe's lawyer"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article
Is there any reason why nobody has proposed this for an FA? Its an excellent film article I think  The Bald One       White cat 21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was promoted before, but as the primary contributor, I personally requested to hold off on the candidancy. While I think the film article is in great shape so far, I still believe that it needs to be comprehensive.  There are a lot of themes to be written about, especially those from people other than the filmmakers (see intentional fallacy).  I have a user page full of resources to use, and I really do hope that I get around to adding these themes over the holiday break.  I want to raise the bar, so to speak. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't "Where Is My Mind?" by the Pixies is also played in the movie, at the end? Maybe you could expand the music score section a bit. Apart from that, great article, thanks a lot! Thallium81 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the song. I have wanted to add it to the "Musical score" section with a reason why the song was chosen, but I have not found any reliable source with an explanation.  I am not sure what else could be added to the section.  The track listing did not strike me as very encyclopedic, since it can be found at shopping websites.  I think that track listings belong better when they provide accessibility by linking songs and musicians.  Obviously, the Dust Brothers is the primary composer here... and thanks for the compliment about the article!  Still more work to be done, though! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What Would Tyler Durden Do?
An editor is wanting to add What Would Tyler Durden Do? to the film article's "Cultural impact" section because the blog is popular. I argue that the blog is not popular because of the blog's title, but because of the blog's content. Thus, there is only a tangential relationship with the film, and it most definitely is not an indicator of the film's popularity, but rather the general popularity of gossip blogs in the past few years. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely see Erik's perspective on this one. My overriding feeling however is that the name of the blog is so inextricably connected to the film and this connection is a primary reason for the blog's popularity. There are obviously thousands of gossip blogs out there and content is a key differentiator. But the title of this blog, its play off of the character of Tyler Durden, is why I think it truly went viral. It's just such a catchy name - completely apart from the content. BigBrightStars (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Monologue "most quoted"? Not.
The article states:

"Tyler Durden's recitation of the rules of fight club is considered one of the most quoted monologues in cinema...."

Sorry, but that's absurd. People quote the first lines of it, yes. But have you ever heard anyone (other than a fanatic devotee of the movie) quote the entire thing?

There are some monologues that are quoted in their entirety -- Orson Welles' lecture about Renaissance Italy and Switzerland in The Third Man, for example. This isn't anything like that. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Full quote from citation: "Key scene: Rules of Fight Club. The words came from novelist Chuck Palahniuk, but set to Fincher's prowling camerawork and spoken by Brad Pitt... it's become one of the most quoted monologues in cinema." I somewhat agree with what you say, but I hate to cite personal experience over a secondary source. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

 * This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fight Club (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Homoerotic Overtones
The phrase "homoerotic overtones" is repeated throughout, it really needs its own section and better explanation/discussion. These overtones are lost on majority of the audience, and are mostly discussed by LGBT film critics and university professors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.151.193 (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you really think the scene where Tyler and Jack leave Lou's Tavern for the first time and discuss Jack's staying at Tyler's house was subtle? I imagine anybody who knows the word 'homoerotic' would attach it to that discussion. Uucp (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides CP's blatant homosexuality, "shock" artists like to throw homosexuality around to "shock" the non-gays in the audience. The bathroom scene isn't obviously homosexual, since many men bathe together either as brothers or as team mates or in gyms and prisons and most men never think anything gay about it. The most "homoerotic" scenes are the fight scenes, where the men are sweaty, smiling, and enjoy holding each other. Witness MMA, where the two big guys spend most of their time not hitting each other, as in boxing, but hugging each other on the mat, very nearly smooching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, the talk page is intended for discussion on how to improve the article, not discussion about the film in general. The scene mentioned in the article was intended to be homoerotic by the director, and it is cited accordingly.  There is no information I've come across to suggest that the filmmakers intended for the fight scenes to be homoerotic.  However, there may be interpretations about the homoerotic nature of the fights -- one of the "Further reading" items at Interpretations of Fight Club likely has something. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:NFimageoveruse
Editor added the NFimageoveruse template without providing an edit summary and marked his edit as minor. I contacted him on his talk page asking if he planned to make a statement justifying the template's addition, and he blanked the page without a response. Since non-free images were added to this article based on careful consideration, the template was unhelpful in instructing why these considerations should be dismissed. I've removed the template, and I invite editors to comment on the use of the article's non-free images at its FAC page. — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the removal of the template; it wasn't particularly helpful, given that—no matter the final determination of the images' suitability—each one at least asserts the case for fair-use inclusion. Steve  T • C 19:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to remove it myself, but was waiting to see Nua's response to your inquiry. Any issues with the images can be brought up one-by-one at the FAC. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote
An editor added a hatnote at the top of the article, linking to Fight Club and Fight Club (disambiguation). WP:HATNOTE says that one improper use is disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. For example, Fight Club is an article name that is ambiguous and warrants the hatnote that exists there. Readers would not have arrived incidentally at this article looking for a topic other than the film. For this reason, I removed the hatnote. — Erik (talk • contrib) 04:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)