Talk:Get Out/Archive 1

Reads like an advertisement
and may fail WP:N L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not a comdey horror flim it is a horror flim Sademo21 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical acclaim?
Why is this phrase forbidden? The film has scored a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only one negative review thus far. (This is unheard of, nowadays.) It holds an average rating of 8.3/10 on the site, as well as an 83 on Metacritic.

This is practically the definition of critical acclaim. It certainly sounds like near-universal acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondCHedges (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Universal" means everyone everywhere. It is impossible to say that everyone everywhere liked anything because it is impossible to source.


 * "Near-universal" is POV. How did you determine that nearly everyone liked it? Again, this is impossible.


 * You are assuming that the 99% of critics RT is counting praised the film enthusiastically and that RT's critics are all of the critics (as implied by using the unqualified "critics"). The score, however, merely means that 99% of those critics gave it a positive review. Maybe they all absolutely loved it. Maybe they all thought it was marginally better than average. It's probably somewhere in the middle for some of the reviews. The source does not say, so we do not know. What we know is that RT gave it a score of 99%, based on however many reviews. That's what we know, that's what we should say. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Critical acclaim" should only be used when it can be backed up by reliable sources that specifically say it was critically acclaimed or something to that phrasing. The RT rating is a good meter when there are this many reviews and it is certified. There are plenty of sources that can attest that this movie was critically acclaimed. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's always somebody with something stuck up their butt, had a bad day/life whatever. The bad review is from an African American working in conservative media. Why would such an individual like this film which is practically a parody of their life course? Reminds me of Geo. Will's review of ET as "subversive". Better than 90%s on something requires forced compliance so minus that disaffected margin is in fact universal acclaim. At this point with all the mindless dreck targetted at the mentally stunted it's not hard to do this if you put something half way fresh and adult out. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd take that one step further. Including a paragraph summarizing White's review is WP:UNDUE. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Short lead?
added the tag in April. It looks fine to me. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead only says of the plot "follows a young interracial couple who visit the mysterious estate of the woman's parents." That is hardly descriptive of that passage in the article. The lead is supposed to give an overview of the rest of the article--this would be like saying, "Titanic is a 1997 romantic film directed by James Cameron about a man and a woman who meet on a boat." ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it a bit. (I'm expecting the usual reverts trying to remove "spoilers", of course.) It's rather difficult to say more without ending up with a verbose paragraph that doesn't belong in the lead. I'm not sure if her involvement, past victims and the auction are within the level of detail we're looking for here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Get Out (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160505134809/http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-21916-rian-johnson-rolls-cameras-on-star-wars-episode-viii-chris-pratt-zoe-saldana-start-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/ to http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-21916-rian-johnson-rolls-cameras-on-star-wars-episode-viii-chris-pratt-zoe-saldana-start-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/
 * Added tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

– The disambiguation page currently has only five entries that even have a page, two of which are redirects. The other two – the Capercaillie album and the board game – |Get_Out_(Capercaillie_album)|Get_Out_(board_game) pale in comparison to the film by pageviews. Googling "Get Out" with this modified search string to eliminate personal bias puts this Wikipedia article as the second result, behind IMDb. This makes the film the primary topic, and the title ought to be succinct. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Get Out (film) → Get Out
 * Get Out → Get Out (disambiguation)
 * Oppose WP:RECENT, great as the film was this is such a basic verb in the English language, it doesn't meet the second criteria of PT. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although "get out" is a verb, there would never be a Wikipedia article actually about the word, similar to Rocky or Inception. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support It's not really bias seeing as this is an "AFI top 10 film of the year" and the other things in the disambiguation aren't nearly as acclaimed or popular.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By "bias", I meant Google location tracking, personalized results, etc. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, primary topic by a huge margin. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Won BIFA Award for Best Foreign Independent Film just today and has won Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Screenplay. Idea that the film will be forgotten in three more weeks is not convincing. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —  Film Fan  00:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per |Get_Out_(film)|Get_Out_(Capercaillie_album)|Get_Out_(board_game)|Get_Out!_(Busta_Rhymes_song)|Leave_(Get_Out) pageviews, by which the movie has over a million views in the past 60 days, and all other topics combine for less than 20,000. bd2412  T 02:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I understand the worry that this is an example of WP:RECENT, especially since for years, I presume that most people searching for "Get Out" were actually searching for the JoJo song "Leave (Get Out)", which is listed on the disambiguation page. But I think this movie is significant enough to be recognized as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--AyaK (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Primary topic and pageviews comparison are utterly convincing, and it is clear this will be topic people are looking for under this title for many years to come.--Pharos (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The English phrase "Get out!" is different from Get Out – the English phrase usually has a lowercase out and the movie has an uppercase Out. The film is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the spelling of get out with an uppercase letter. A hatnote should solve any confusion.  CookieMonster755  𝚨-𝛀    00:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per basically every point above. Sock   ( tock talk)  04:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Horror-Comedy?
Should this movie be classifeid as a Horror-Comedy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinKassemJ120 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea. I read three reviews of the film and it's been classified as such. Bluesphere   10:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How about . . . satirical horror-thriller (Los Angeles Times) or satirical horror-comedy (The New Yorker magazine). I'm not a regular editor here and haven't seen the film, so you all can discuss this and decide. 5Q5 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is how to use a talk page but I honestly think this is a horror film. There's not much comedy except one character. If anything I think horror thriller is way better than horror comedy.
 * It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the opinion of reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On this topic... Peele himself has stated that he does not think it is comedy, but it has a satire element (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1YAdd6ERBs), so maybe "satire horror" would be better? 14:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we have guidelines on what to write for the genre in the opening sentence. WP:FILMLEAD says, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified... Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." So we should definitely root the genre in sources, but we need to avoid mashing up different labels into something that has not been used before. We should consider going with the most common label from sources; reviews would be a good start for this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Erik, also we should refrain from trying to push our own WP:POV onto the article just because we don't think the film is comedic enough. Reliable sources appear to use the term "horror comedy" way more than "satirical horror" or "horror thriller".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In an interview upon the film's release, Producer Jason Blum recalled his conversation with Jordan Peele where Peele stated "he didn’t want to make a horror-comedy--he wanted to make a straight horror movie". So per that specifically, the director of the flick stating the genre as a horror movie (though touching on multiple other genres in the background, obviously), I believe it should be changed to state simply Horror. ---Tobiasthered
 * The director's intentions have nothing to do with how the film was perceived by critics. What was intended to be made and what ended up being made are two different things. The end result is all that matters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just how many sources would it take then for a reclassification, since you know, us, lowly wiki readers know so little about film genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.51.129 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, instead of cherry-picking reviews sharing the point that there aren't enough comedic elements in this film to go as far as including the word "comedy" in is genre-classification, I am going to take TT's own claim; "... Reliable sources appear to use the term "horror comedy" way more than "satirical horror" or "horror thriller..."( TriiipleThreat [oh nice username btw, it invokes and inspires sooo much dialogue] doesn't mention of course, just how many sources he/she is basing this claim on, or care to naming/referencing them, without doing that, it's just a POV. Oh but that's OK because, maybe, TT is of the sort that sticks to the old adage: do what I say, not what I do kinda type) and take him/her at his/her own words and conduct a full count of the yeas (comedic) and nays (non-comedic) of the roughly 450 reviews available.

Yeas (Comedic) 9          Nays (Non-Comedic) 23 Daleylife (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just putting my two cents in here... I would certainly NOT call this a comedy. Yes, it has the "best friend" character that adds some comic relief, but this film should not have the term "comedy" attached to it. For the record, IMDB calls it a Horror, Mystery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/movies/get-out-lil-rel-howery-tsa-rod.html?_r=0 [Yea] http://ew.com/movies/2017/02/21/get-out-jordan-peele-exclusive-clip/ [Yea] http://people.com/movies/get-out-movie-review-jordan-peele/ [Yea] http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/get-out-2017 [Nay] https://addictedtohorrormovies.com/2017/02/25/drop-everything-and-see-get-out/ [Nay] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_film  [Nay] http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/get-out [Nay] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/movies/get-out-review-jordan-peele.html [Nay] https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/02/23/review-jordan-peele-get-out-movie/98249818/ [Nay] http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2017/03/get-movie-review-yes-white-people.html [Nay] http://www.yearsofterror.eu/2017/04/get-out-2017/ [Nay] http://150film.blogspot.ca/2017/04/get-out.html [Nay] https://www.500daysoffilm.com/2017/03/07/get-out/ [Nay] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052448/?ref_=nv_sr_1 [Nay] http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Disc_Announcements/jordan-peeles-get-out-bluray-preorders-live/38298 [Nay] http://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/8188/get-out [Nay] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/get_out [Yea] http://aselenatorsview.blogspot.ca/2017/03/get-out-2017.html [Nay] http://asliveroffilm.blogspot.ca/2017/04/film-no-23-2017-get-out-april-5th.html [Yea] http://www.afksinemada.com/2017/04/get-out.html [Nay] http://afrofilmviewer.blogspot.ca/2017/03/review-get-out.html [Nay] http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Get-Out-Hypnotiserende-gross-618572b.html [Yea] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77120 [Yea] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77326 [Nay] http://aisleseat.com/get-out.htm [Nay] http://alibi.com/film/52943/Get-Out.html [Nay] https://www.alicebishop.net/2017/03/17/get-out/ [Nay] http://www.wdroid.com/2017/02/get-out-horror-movie-review-hollywood.html [Nay] https://allthingsmoviesuk.com/2017/03/17/jordanpeelehorror/ [Nay] http://alwaysgoodmovies.com/reviews/2017/4/3/get-out-2017 [Yea] https://amiratthemovies.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/review-get-out-2017/ [Nay] https://ohthatfilmblog.com/2017/03/21/get-out-2017/ [Yea]

That is all for this evening. Nays are in the lead 23-9 or at 72% Nay. 32 out 450 reviews assessed/7% 24.53.51.129 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Peele calls his film a social thriller. A web search on the term will attest to this. Morganfitzp (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this after rewatched it with DVD commentary from Peele. In an interview, when asked if it was a comedy, Peele said it is not a comedy (although it has funny moments, and he said the Rod character is the comic relief and stole the movie), but he views it as "satirical horror" which has been supported by reliable sources that 5Q5 pointed this out earlier. In this area, we need the very best critics' opinions, as not all critics examine the real layers of a film. I think "satirical horror film" is more accurate than just saying "horror film." It is not a satire of a horror film (ie spoof films), it is a horror film that is satirical about today's culture. I will try to improve the intro and the article overall bc this film really deserves Good Article status. Appreciate your help. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

'''


 * There should really be a 'Genre' section to cover this, given how much has been written on this, including mention of satire, psychological horror and especially Peele's own term, social thriller.--Pharos (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Being John Malkovich
The information about the connection to John Malkovich is probably not worth mentioning in the article. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section, and the current wording - especially describing it as a "confirmed theory" - is misleading.

Here's what the sources used in the article actually tell us:


 * This is a fan theory. Get Out was never conceived as a sequel to Being John Malkovich or thought of as such until after the film was released. The Screenrant source even says: "It’s clear from Peele’s comments that any connection wasn’t intentional."


 * Both sources describe the theory as "hilarious", indicating that it is not to be taken seriously. The Cinema Blend source describes it as "one of the goofier" fan theories.


 * Peele is clearly being tongue in cheek when he says: "I also sat down with [Being John Malkovich director] Spike Jonze a couple months ago, told him this theory myself and he chuckled. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s true." He is endorsing it as a fun interpretation of the film. That's it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's clearly meant humorously by Peele, and have removed it. Possibly this could deserve a sentence with other fan theories (if they have significant coverage) in 'Reception'.--Pharos (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Changing wording to mention exactly that. Thank you very much for providing a way to clarify. HarrisonSteam (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you mean well, and Peele and Jonze and I too find it entertaining, as a fan of both movies, but this isn't a "confirmed theory", and it doesn't deserve more than a sentence at most in this article, certainly not a whole section.--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"Hello, my name is HarrisonSteam, named after Harrison Wells and Steampunk."

I'd like to discuss the place of Being John Malkovich in this article. After being reverted three times I was asked to talk about it here. The thing is, I don't see why my edits are being reverted. The stuff I put about the sequel being mentioned on Reddit is true! I've seen Reddit being used as a source in the past, so I don't see how this isn't relevant. This information is straight from the mouth (well, hands) of this film's director, Jordan Peele. The stuff about Malkovich was mentioned there as well, albeit in an interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBvcngHRTFg

Is this information allowed on the page, or should I create a separate section? I would welcome some feedback.

HarrisonSteam (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just though of a section which could include this theory. How does this sound for under "Reception" - "Interpretation and Analysis". It would include stuff like the "cotton-picking" scene and that college course Peele crashed in on. Anyone? HarrisonSteam (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Per Empire, Peele has considered a sequel linking the films' events through the potential casting of John Malkovich, so it must be mentioned. I do agree that there was too much info before, so have trimmed it back significantly. Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree Empire is the most significant aspect, as it concerns the sequel; is there a link for that? I've shortened the rest, to keep it in proportion (surely there are other more important things to say even about the non-existent sequel).  I've also removed the idea of a Lego sequel, which is clearly just a joke answer to a joke question on Reddit.--Pharos (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed this further. Until I read that Empire interview and see exactly what the director says I still think this is dubious. The citations are vague - the previous wording appears to cite both a Vanity Fair interview and also a statement he "later" made, followed by a series of citations. Popcornduff (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a URL for the Malkovich casting? Where exactly is this stated, and can you give a fuller quote?--Pharos (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Source: Jordan Peele - The Breakthrough Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)/
 * That link doesn't work for me, is it some sort of file hosting service? Is this a scan or something?--Pharos (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Replaced. Click Link Again."Perhaps, Empire suggests, you should cast John Malkovich in a role. 'Yeah', Peele says, 'we'll do the full trilogy'."Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you might have broken a few rules about uploading that image to Wikipedia and then displaying it in full on this talk page, but putting that aside: this sounds like another tongue-in-cheek comment from the director and not worth including in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing the source, although I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia - something like an image hosting service would have been a good place to share it temporarily. And when you create a citation to a print publication, it's best to include the page number, otherwise it's confusing. I should note that the same paragraph you posted that mentions Malkovich also appears to say Peele has no plans for a sequel, so I'm not sure we should have a section under that title at all.--Pharos (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Split out accolades
I'd like to gauge other editors' thoughts. The accolades section of the article currently takes up about one third of the screen size, which may be too much. Should List of accolades received by Get Out be created? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine for now but keeping in mind still not at end of awards season we could see a lot more and this could grow even more. MoviePhan (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My 2¢s: I wrestled with this question while expanding 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. The accolades table dominated the article, or half of it, much the same as here, but my main reason for ultimately splitting it out was that I believed the article could be developed more and the prose could be expanded. Same thoughts here, really. There's enough accolades table and accolades references to make a good list article, IMO: But could the main article be further developed? Are there enough references available at this point to expand the production, themes, release, aftermath, etc.? And is anyone willing to do it? Ribbet32 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support splitting it off into another article sooner rather than later, especially as awards season continues and it seems to be doing particularly well.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done the split. Hopefully everyone's great with that. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Poor Plot Synopsis
The plot synopsis is insufficient. To suggest that the plot is nothing more than a man noticing some unusual behavior among the staff of an estate is both reductive and inaccurate.

Yes, a one-sentence plot synopsis is not meant to include "spoilers" but we can do much better than the existing one. Unfortunately my efforts to edit it have been reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnesotasteve (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as plot summaries go, the lead should summarise the main premise and themes, and stop there. The current phrasing does that, I think, although it's kind of wordy. I reverted your change because it made it even wordier - bordering on purple prose - without adding much information. Popcornduff (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll see if I can come up with something that is slightly better at summarizing the main premise and theme, as I think this falls a little short. Agree that wordier doesn't mean better. Minnesotasteve —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please keep the prologue in the summary guys
It is important to the story, partly because it occurs before the title cards and sets up the menace of the film. Black people are getting abducted. Plus that is actually Andre Hayworth being abducted. It is the proper start of the film. Also I think the summary should mention Rod at the time he's introduced in the film during the second scene. Chris not listening to his "brother", instead trusting his white girlfriend is  a major theme in the film. Rod reminds Chris at the end he warned him(right at the very start of the film, lol) not to go into the house.

I think the rest of this longer summary this other user wrote recently needs to be recut down. He's put way too much in the summary. Colliric (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the plot summary as the previous version was drastically overlong. I don't think we need the prologue as it doesn't affect anything in the plot - we learn later that the guy had been abducted anyway. Remember that plot summaries must be concise. Popcornduff (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oscar voting section
shouldn't be point out that Oscar voters had reservations about voting for the film for Best Picture?--The lorax (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2017
this shit was a comedy not a horror film. get your facts right. 67.83.195.11 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See suggestion for a "genre" section above. Also see social thriller article. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot inaccuracies reverted?
Hi. I usually appreciate the work you do and we have successfully worked on articles together before. This time, for once, I do not agree with your revert on the edits I made on the article.

You state that I allegedly unnecessarily extended the plot. In fact, I even removed the beginning scene with the deer since it has little affiliation with the film in general. On top of this, the plot is relatively brief compared to plot summaries in most English WP articles.

Anyhow, I must admit that some details such as Logans bleeding nose or the fact that he is someone from the NY neighborhood might indeed be excessive, so I do not insist on them being readded.

However, other elements I added are essential for the plot, especially the fact that Walther tells Chris they met during the night, clearly revealing that Chris was not dreaming about the hypnosis. Also, do not forget that the movie critically assesses racism in the US (as the deer scene in the beginning already shows). It is crucial to accentuate why the guests of the family treat Chris the way they do and why it is that they specifically chose to be transfered into a black person. Something we only get to know by the end of the film.

In my opinion, the complete revert was thus too radical of a measure. You are a known user and I have no doubt you are ready to reassess you opinion when the facts warrant a change. Greets, --Abzo (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your expansion just didn't pass the smell test. It contains quite a lot of stuff that I think we just don't need to cover. There's the stuff you already mentioned, plus, for example:


 * and Walter excuses himself for startling him during their nightly encounter. Not important to the plot.
 * We don't need to know about the teacup tinkling (and that's bizarre phrasing). Missy hypnotises him. That's fine.
 * a young man from their New York neighborhood not important where he's from.


 * Which parts do you think are essential? You mention a few, but can you list them all? Popcornduff (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree we can live without the deer thing. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary racism and modern commodification of the black body
Section needs to be deleted. Critical interpretations of films do not belong on the film page, especially ones that are so long, cite one source, and are written from first person perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.63.205.182 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. The section should be entirely deleted.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased labels
National Review is the only magazine given a political label ("the conservative magazine National Review"), which is an indicator of a biased article. If one is going be given a political label, then the others should as well to be consistent, such as "the liberal magazine Rolling Stone." Rickm7x (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Being John Malkovich Theory
I've got no real passion for this theory one way or another. However, we had a situation at Being John Malkovich where it was covered in as many words as the reception of that movie and it was not covered here at all. It was attempted to be removed there in February which was reverted by. My thinking is that this theory is either notable and should be covered in roughly an equivalent manner in both articles, which is what I attempted to do here, or it should not be covered in either article. Personally, without having dived too deeply into the conversation, I'm in favor of option B. Will post something at the BJM talk page to see if a single conversation could be had. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I have also pinged the talk page of the Film WikiProject and who reverted the addition here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be excluded from both articles. My reasons are the same as the ones I gave in the previous discussion on this talk page, but here they are again:
 * This is a fan theory, and is described as such by sources. Get Out was never conceived as a sequel to Being John Malkovich or thought of as such until after the film was released.
 * Sources describe the theory as "hilarious", indicating that it is not to be taken seriously. Cinema Blend describes it as "one of the goofier" fan theories.
 * Peele is clearly being tongue in cheek when he says: "I also sat down with [Being John Malkovich director] Spike Jonze a couple months ago, told him this theory myself and he chuckled. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s true." He is endorsing it as a fun interpretation of the film. That's it. Popcornduff (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with removal unless there's any evidence that this is anything more than a fan theory. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Page Move
This article was moved by to Get Out (2017 film) with the edit summary Matches Us (2019 film). I have moved it back per WP:DAB as we don't need to disambiguate in this case. Noting here in case others wish to weigh in or Scott would like to start a more formal RM to change the name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No need for the move. Popcornduff (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Themes Edit From 2019
A little over a year ago a user by the name Zelchenko made an edit using a source he himself obviously authored and published on wordpress, yet it still stands unabated. Seems pretty obvious that that isn't a reliable source, so does anyone want to explain why it has been up so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F610:CE10:84E3:A5D8:750F:94A6 (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Keegan-Michael Key really in this movie?
I just read the movie article and watch the movie again and I don't see this actor anywhere. he is supposed to be one of the NCAA players that shows up in her Bing search but none of the looks anything like him, furthermore I just made a small google search and it only points out to a dubious reddit article. I wanted to edit the article but i think I would prefer a second opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osw719 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this BuzzFeed article that

also says he shows up in a photo on Rose's Bing search, but that is also of dubious reliability. IMO, Key should be removed from the cast listing unless or until a more credible source can be found. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

SF horror film category
Could anyone please tell me this qualifies as a science fiction horror film, and if so, I should add it to Category:2010s science fiction horror films and to this list?--Thylacine24 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)