Talk:Leave the World Behind (film)

Film vs. Book
This isn't my area of expertise, but we need a comparison between the book and the movie for this article. I've never experienced a book and movie that diverge so heavily. In the book almost nothing happens at all except the family question why they cannot receive a cellphone or television signal, and then it ends. In the trailer for the movie it is clearly obvious there is an apocalypse bearing down, with epic storms, clouds of crazy particles, gun fights etc. An enormously different story from the long, ponderous book. QINGCHARLES (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Starship Troopers is one example of crazy differences between book and film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.53 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So you're just basing this theory off a trailer?  Mike  Allen   21:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the book and seen the trailer. The trailer shows predominantly scenes and events that do not happen in the book. The book would make a very poor movie as literally nothing happens to the characters. QINGCHARLES (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * , Just looked at the summary of the novel on its article page, and the movie seems to follow the novel's plot (as described there) pretty much beat-for-beat (I had to even check the article title to make sure that I was indeed reading the article for the novel and not mistakenly back on the film's article). As for books and movie that diverge greatly (to the point of not being recognized as the same story), there are many examples of that, but at the moment, based on the novel's WP article, this does not look like one to me. Even from the trailer (mentioned by ) I'm not really getting that impression. —  al-Shimoni  (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I disgaree completely. The plot description of the film diverges significantly from the book. Other than the names of the characters, a nod towards on over-reliance on technology, and the events playing out at an Airbnb, the plots are very dissimilar. That being said, including commentary about the major changes between the two would require coverage of the divergence in reliable sources, otherwise it's just original research.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources here:
 * Independent (newspaper)
 * People (magazine)
 * Screen Rant
 * Radio Times
 * Time (magazine)
 * Men's Health
 * Lankyant (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
I removed the references to nuclear weapons in the plot section; there is nothing in the film to support that the bombs seen in the film were nuclear, nor did the emergency messages depicted in the film say anything about nuclear weapons. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think simple deduction does that. Should we write instead "a unidentified bomb with the explosive capacity of modern nuclear weapons"? Is that really more clear or informative? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were a nuclear weapon there wouldn't still be a NYC skyline. It's a large bomb, but nuclear it is not. Dwebtron (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Plot
I started reading it and it is ridiculously detailed, to the point that the reader doesn’t know what’s happening overall precisely because every single thing that happens onscreen is being talked about. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree it needs massively cutting down. Lankyant (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023
Add "Michele Caspani" to the list of Producers. Coinsquolino (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
Change Sanford to Sandford. Sanforjw (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2023
Why does the plot description in the article state specifically that it was an 'Airbnb', even linking to the page for Airbnb as though it were an important plot detail, when in fact they almost seem to go out of their way to avoid mentioning Airbnb. The dialogue suggests it is some other generic or anachronistic form of vacation rental, as they describe emailing back and forth and Amanda appears baffled that George would be the owner instead of recognizing him from say his profile as she likely would have had it in fact been an Airbnb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.239.103 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Done Justanotherguy54 (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding plot editing spree
I've noticed there are several people who have somewhat engaged in a writing-cum-editing contest in the plot section of the film. Leave the World Behind. I understand there are many who wish to contribute, but the addition of too many details, especially minute ones - are unnecessary.

I did manage to shorten the plot to satisfy Wiki's plot-writing limit at 700 words, but within a few hours more editors show up, adding to this edit fight, of sorts. Such extra, minute facts - which I found on the edits just after mine, such as:

(1).Paragraph 2: "... and a quick news broadcast on the radio claims that an environmental disaster has occurred and the migration pattern of animals have been erratic..."

(2).Paragraph 2: "... two then see a massive flock of birds flying in circles erratically..."

(3).Paragraph 3: "... exploding most windows and all lights..."

These are not plot crucial details, since the main ones are already mentioned. In the time the aforementioned events occur, the audience and the film characters have already understood the precariousness of the film's events, so there's no necessity to write so minutely.

Plots are meant to mean to cover the gist, not too many minute details; they only keep the plot above the limit of 700 words - which is annoying. To any contributing editor, leave the plot be and do not edit it. The main, pivotal facts are already covered in the plot for a reader to understand the apocalyptic direction of the film. Silver Pavilion (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I am rather puzzled by your edit here, which introduced equally irrelevant content and a bunch of grammatical errors. While agreeing that too much detail is not good, demanding that your fellow editors simply "not edit it" has never been an effective solution to improving the encyclopedia. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey look, I wrote those! I don't know if they should be included or not, since they are technically relevant to the story and figuring out what happened in the movie. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How to write the plot properly, and how you should apply this for other movies with a plot written.
If you aren't sure that what your writing works, then follow my criteria for how it should be written. 1. No extending sentences via semicolons and commas. Keep it how it should be. 2. Inferencing and unneeded info should not be used, such as saying that the standoff in the film should be called a Mexican standoff. 3. No trying to make the plot writing seem forced or poetically, such as overusing transition words. And obviously, for number 4, there should be no vandalizing. I think these 4 rules should apply for writing a plot essay for a movie. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Plot subdivisions
I don't know if it's helpful for plot subdivision chapters as they're presented in the film, especially as the plot isn't particularly complicated. Tarantino's film articles don't do it (Pulp Fiction does, but that one warrants it), but some established editors are ok with it here. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it is either. It’s a SUMMARY. Not a plot breakdown.  I’m tired of fighting it.  Mike   Allen   10:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why a revert of my edit to the plot should be reconsidered
This thread concerns the edit I made here that was reverted by @MikeAllen. I respectfully submit a counter argument.

One thing that often happens on Wikipedia is the erasure of racial or ethnic differences. It is important and essential to have nuance when it comes to writing up difference in editing texts. There is no need to mention race or gender unless it's relevant. It's relevant here and none of the text as I found it even mentioned that race was an core element of the plot. Instead of marking the whiteness or blackness of Amanda and her family vs. GH and his daughter, it was a more subtle tactic to add the actors playing the roles. I could and maybe should make this nuance around race from the novel more explicit in introducing the plot. Or I can go back and mark the race of the character. I made a bold decision as an experienced editor who is also a POC. Maybe I am wrong or maybe I'm right, but reverting by toeing the line on a guideline that is NOT a rule defies the pillars of WP. I respect that you have lots of experience editing film articles as a creator yourself, but to rest on the laurel that plots cannot be more than 700 words is defying the community guidelines set by the 5 pillars. #5: Wikipedia has no firm rules.

The film plot guidelines say "should" not must and who but a niggler trying to gatekeep their previous subject need add that to justify their case for reverting a minor but significant edit?

@MikeAllen, I invite and request you assume positive intent. I want this edit to stick unless you'd rather I mark racial identities of the characters instead. Given the nature of race relations in the US right now, I considered nuance after initially added whiteness and blackness to the plot. I wanted to stay open-minded to the larger context of that the plot is based on a novel where the psychological drama turns on racial and socioeconomic differences. The actor's names can signify that difference, imho, better than using what might be considered trigger words like whiteness or blackness in the plot. But I could also add more context to frame why that matters in the intro to the plot.

Actually, by pointing to the guideline about plots, my edit actually fits the "rule" used to justify reverting the edit. The film plot guideline reads:

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional" which in this case it is. The guideline you suggested added "Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." This is my discussion. Thoughts? I'm open to debate.

If I don't hear back in 3-4 days, I intend to revise and resubmit my edit, which was among a series of edits to this article to ensure race and class were included as intended by the novel's author.

sheridanford (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by race and ethnic differences. I reverted your edit because we do not include actors in the plot, as I said in my edit summary. This article has nothing to do with the novel, and apparently the film's plot is much different.  Mike   Allen   15:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just made a few tweaks to my argument above. I am inviting cooperation not competition here. Amatuers compete. Pros collaborate. I think given both our long experience on WP, we can collaborate and not get stuck on being right or wrong. I understand WHY you reverted it. I am not [typo: I AM] asking for your cooperation in reconsidering why I added actors and not the race of the characters. sheridanford (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MikeAllen I am not nor have I ever started an edit war. Just trying to find a peaceful solution to the unconventional plot here. Race and class are subtexts in the plot but it was not mentioned until I added it throughout the article. If that's not your bag, fine. But it was the intent of the author of the novel on which the movie is based. sheridanford (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And you did say you also reverted the edit because you felt it was transgressing the info about word counts. sheridanford (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I did not revert your edit because you added plot points. It was because we do not add cast in the plot. Adding names (that is already in cast section) bloats the plot.  Mike  Allen   15:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Ok. sheridanford (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SheridanFord, your most recent plot changes look fine to me, they do add nuance and don't significantly bloat the plot past guidelines. Adverbs and duplicate references always jump out at me, but even IMO the biggest offender "unexpectedly" adds some context here. Not sure we even need the NYT reference in the plot. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The NYT reference was added because whomever wrote this plot opening used the word "mianthrope" which is odd for anyone. It came from that NYT article which was not cited, for your info. sheridanford (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Being disagreeable (unfriendly, curmudgeonly) is not welcome. You may not realize or recognize that you're comment "IMO the biggest offender..." is disagreeable and not respectful of a fellow editor.
 * "Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." Civility sheridanford (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was being supportive of your edits, just saying adverbs usually don't add much to plots. In fact I had it in mind to revert @NYVII because you've made a case that your changes are relevant in this plot. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Permission to lock the page
There have been too many cum-fest edits on the article, and I request that the article be edit-warning locked, due to the amount of high editing. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not so bad on this article, the description "cum-fest edits" is probably the worst of it. If you really feel otherwise you go to WP:RFPP. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. It's just that I and several others have been working on keeping the plot short, but there's people that are extending it or making it worse. Sorry for the negative feedback. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons why requesting page protection for a minor content dispute like this might not get the result you want. My experience is that frequent plot edits happen with any new film release, and so I suggest to either keep that in mind and edit accordingly, or wait a month or two until editing drops off and resume from there. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)