Talk:Lucy (2014 film)

Entire page needs to be cleaned up, and the title of this article needs to be changed
There seem to be little to no sources on this page, and the title of the film should only be "Lucy (2014 film)" or simply Lucy.

Can someone please come in and clean this page up as it seems like a real big mess.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.8.167 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * no one's going to clean the page up / change the title? Need more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Christophe Lambert
The actor Christophe Lambert is not the same person as the EuropaCorp CEO and producer with the same name.24.49.28.110 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

LUCY opens August 8, 2014
source: http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/justin-lins-bourne-gets-august-2015-release/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.9.105 (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Amazon
Do not put links to movies, novels, or stories that involve a similar plot device. The correct Wikipedia technique is to create a category which Lucy and the like all belong to. I'd do so, but I'm stumped at what the correct name of such a category should be. "Enhanced intelligence is fiction" is too broad, since that covers supergeniuses in general. "Suddenly enhanced intelligence in fiction" is more accurate, but it is awfully clumsy. Choor monster (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to be basically Limitless meets The Matrix. They seem like pretty appropriate see-alsos to me. -- Impsswoon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's called an "opinion". When the critics describe the movie that way, we can quote them.  That still doesn't rate as a See-Also, since frankly, that kind of movie-summary is quite common and rather hit-and-miss in its accuracy.  A See-Also film would be something that has a direct connection to Lucy.  An example of what works is The Hidden Fortress and Spaceballs on Star Wars.  A hypothetical would be if someone bought the rights to Limitless, and then remade it with gender role changes and put it in a different country.  Merely having the same plot device/sci-fi concept does not rate a See-Also.  It does rate a shared category. Choor monster (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems eerily similar to the anime/manga Elfen Lied, the main character is also named Lucy and has many of the same abilities, and it's also an extremely violent anime, much like this film seems likely to be - perhaps some controversy will come up in the future about this, plagarism etc. 108.66.17.57 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)


 * I've seen the Elfen Lied comparison in the comments sections for the Lucy (2014 film) trailer on YouTube. Speaking as someone (a female fan) who has seen (and loves) the anime Elfen Lied, the only similarity I see between these two stories (without having yet seen the film in question) are a female character name Lucy and telekinesis. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and of course both Lucys are very violent. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a to which this would clearly belong if it were a novel, but no corresponding film category. Perhaps it's time? Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

With this edit, I added film comparisons to the Reception section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Official production notes/cast list and bios
For any editor who wants an official source to create the cast list and other production information, you can find Production Notes and Bios that the news media are given by doing a Google search for: site:lucymovie.com pdf. For example, Del Rio's first name is Pierre. 5Q5 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Afeni Shakur?
The links referencing Afeni Shakur as the basis of Lucy's character say nothing about Afeni, and no Google search comes up with anything linking Afeni's life to this film. Clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.73.34 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit was WP:Vandalism or simply a misguided edit, left in the article for two hours until I showed up and removed it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Budget
In the sidebar it says $40 million, in the body of the article it says EUR 49 million. So which is it? -- 24.212.139.20 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No Mention Of Lawnmower Man?
Movie reviewers inevitably leave something out because they were just given the job of doing the review. That is what has happened here. I'm not going to do your work for you though.Godofredo29 (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , there are enough film comparisons, pretty common ones (with most of them being elaborated on in some way), in the Critical reception section; no more are needed. That paragraph serves as an example of the films Lucy has been compared to; it does not need, and should not have, every film that Lucy has been compared to. Furthermore, any inclusion of a comparison should be supported by a WP:Reliable source.


 * On a side note: Regarding the placement of your post, I've moved it down because, per Talk page guidelines, new sections go at the very bottom (usually anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * SPOILER ALERT Yes, I was surprised there was no lawnmover man results on performing a ctrl+f. To me, the film - particularly the conclusion - seemed very derivative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.196.211 (talk • contribs).


 * Are you Striker161? Why did you ping that editor via WP:Echo? Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was about to make a post about this. The Lawnmower Man is more similar to this movie than to any other movie. Similar power, endings, etc... Yes4me (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception section: Lead-in summary
Regarding this, this and this edit by an IP that I reverted all three times, there are no WP:Reliable sources, except for the 60 score from Metacritic, describing Lucy as having generally positive reviews. Various WP:Reliable sources describe reception to the film as "mixed." That Metacritic score is just one score away from the film being described as "mixed or average" by Metacritic, like it was for days. And the 61% score on Rotten Tomatoes is just two percentages away from being described as "rotten" by Rotten Tomatoes, like it was for days. Lucy kept alternating between a "fresh" and "rotten" score on Rotten Tomatoes in its first few days of release, and was still described by WP:Reliable sources as having received mixed reviews from critics, and even after it achieved a 60 score on Metacritic. Per WP:Due weight, we go by what the vast majority of sources state, not the minority. All of that is why I have stuck with "mixed" instead of "positive" or "generally positive" for the lead-in summary. If so many sources were not describing reception to the film as mixed and as dividing critics, then I would state that we are better off without a lead-in summary. But I am one of the WP:FILM editors who believes that a lead-in summary helps readers to assess critical reception to films. As a compromise, which I thought of doing ever since the Rotten Tomatoes score moved up to 60% again, since I knew that some editors would try to then describe the film as having received generally positive reviews, I removed "mixed," but left in "polarized." Still, we don't know if the Rotten Tomatoes score will go back to 59% or 58% in a couple of days or a few days, and, either way, it remains that the vast majority of sources at this point in time describe reception to the film as mixed, as opposed to positive or generally positive.

Erik, Betty Logan, Sock, STATicVapor, your thoughts on this matter? Up for any help with keeping the IP at bay and/or helping the IP understand what I mean? Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And the IP is at it again. Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I alerted WP:FILM to this matter. If no one but me cares to counter the IP on this matter, then so be it. I won't stand for inaccuracy, though; if the IP's edit is to remain, I'll simply drop this article from my WP:Watchlist and move on, despite having significantly improved the article and caring about the topic. I don't have patience for mess. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Much thanks to STATicVapor for reverting the IP; I know that I thanked you via WP:Echo, but thanks again. The article is currently semi-protected since the IP is not attempting to discuss the matter on the article talk page or his own talk page and simply keeps reverting. Semi-protection of the article might urge the IP to participate in discussion here at the talk page about this matter. If the IP returns to WP:Disruptive editing after the semi-protection expires, then I'll likely request for semi-protection again; like I noted at Requests for page protection, as seen in the "currently semi-protected" link, I would report the IP at Administrator intervention against vandalism if his edits were clear-cut vandalism, but they are not, except for perhaps one change to a hidden note. That stated, WP:Disruptive editing can sometimes be enough to report an editor at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. So far, this E! source is the only other reliable source (depending on if you view E! as reliable) that I have come across stating that the film received positive reviews; it states: "The science-fiction action film, directed by Luc Besson, is not for the faint of heart, but so far, it's getting (mostly) positive critical reviews." Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit wordy, but I like the current version. The weight of sources does seem to indicated a "mixed" reception.  I generally dislike editorializing about critical reception, but this is well-sourced.  Honestly, I don't see much room for debate in this matter.  Automated summaries from review aggregators, though useful, are a poor substitute for a reliably sourced comment from professional journalists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, NinjaRobotPirate. As you know, sometimes the scores on review aggregators are clear-cut, such as in the case of The Avengers, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or Guardians of the Galaxy , but sometimes they are not. The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores for those movies reliably reflect critical consensus for those films. With Lucy, I don't think that the review aggregators are off base; like I noted, the Rotten Tomatoes score is not far off from "rotten" and the Metacritic score is only one point away from "mixed." It's just that, unless the aforementioned review aggregator scores improve dramatically, it's better to look to, like you state, professional journalists in this case if we are going to provide a lead-in summary, which I already noted I think we should for this film (especially since, going by the aggregator scores, one or more people will be tempted to state that Lucy received generally positive reviews). Even for films where it's clear-cut that the film has received generally positive reviews, I've taken on the mindset that we should go ahead and reliably source any lead-in statement; we do that at the Edge of Tomorrow (film) article, for example. Anyway, I'm fine with leaving "mixed" out and just sticking with "polarizing" for the Lucy film, even though those two words don't necessarily mean the same thing in the case of critical reviews. But I mainly agree to leave "mixed" out because of what the aggregator scores state, and how having "mixed" there can, as demonstrated above, now cause an argument. And it's better than stating something about the film having received generally positive reviews early on, and then mixed, or "mixed" and "positive." Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the reviews are such a hotch-potch that I think "mixed" would be rather apt in this case. There seems to be a consensus between the aggregators in regards to the share of the positive reviews; they just differ on grading the remaining reviews: a 60:40 positive/negative split on RT and a 60:35 positive/average split on Metcritic. Also, two of the sources being used to source the "polarizing critical reviews" actually describe the critical reception as mixed ( &, first paragraph). If critics were being polarized I would actually expect a larger negative weighting on Metacritic, but it only registers two negative reviews. In reality what the aggregators tell us is that just over half like it while the rest thought it was crap or a bit blah. You could actually word it to that effect: "Critical reception was mixed, with over half the reviews surveyed by review aggregators deemed to be positive while the remainder were regarded as mediocre or negative." I don't think it is a crime to say that the reception was mixed (unlike that "mixed to positive" mangling of the English language), but it is helpful to break down the components. Betty Logan (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as seen in the diff-links of my first paragraph in this section, I included "mixed and polarizing," terms that The Wire source supports. The fourth source, which I'm likely to replace at some point, mentions that the ending of the film is polarizing. I would have a paragraph about the film's ending, but I think that the section has enough paragraphs already, I don't want the ending too spoiled for readers who will skip the Plot section (no matter what WP:Spoiler states), and I like where the Jordan Hoffman commentary about the ending is placed (it's placed in the film comparison paragraph), and I wouldn't want there to be a feeling that it needs to be moved to the "ending paragraph" (if we add one). As for critics being polarized, the polarity aspect is not solely a positive review vs. negative review matter, which is more so an aspect that contributes to a mixed reception. The polarity aspect also involves critics being conflicted about the film within their own reviews; it's similar to what this YouTube film reviewer states. In other words, some reviewers have reported that they don't love or hate the film, that it's a meh and/or "I'm confused" matter. Jeff Ritter of the-trades.com speaks similarly on the topic: "Until now, I had held the belief that Luc Besson films were a 'love them or hate them' proposition," he stated. "There was no middle ground. I loved Leon: The Professional, but The Fifth Element is easily my least favorite sci-fi movie ever—even worse than watching something with Jar Jar Binks in it. With his latest directorial effort, Lucy, Luc Besson seems to have finally landed somewhere in the middle. ... I am always intrigued by Luc Besson films, and how polarizing they tend to be, at least for me. Lucy is a rare case of a Besson movie falling squarely in the middle, a film I neither loved nor hated."


 * Anyway, I like your lead-in summary suggestion, and I don't mind you giving the summary statement a shot, but I do think we should mention something about the polarity of the film, which can be the second sentence. Maybe word it as the following: "The film also polarized critics, with sentiment largely being that the film is silly but entertaining." After all, the film has largely been called dumb, silly, or ridiculous, as shown by the sources supporting the first sentence of the Critical reception section, and Rotten Tomatoes also mentions "silly." I wonder if perhaps like 2001: A Space Odyssey, which also initially received polarizing critical reviews, and which Lucy has been compared to, the critical reception for Lucy will evolve into one that generally praises the film. Maybe that's silly for me to wonder, but I do. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Betty Logan, I changed the lead-in summary again; as you can see, I added most of your suggested wording, but I left out "mixed." I think that, per above, it's best to err on the side of caution with that word in this case. I would have mentioned E! in the hidden note, to relay that only Metacritic and E! state that the film received generally positive reviews; but, as addressed above, Metacritic states "generally positive" while E! states "(mostly) positive." "Mostly" does not automatically mean "generally"; it can indicate a small majority. I or someone else might cut the "with over half of the reviews surveyed by review aggregators deemed to be positive while the remainder were regarded as mediocre or negative" part later, though, as unneeded since that part is clear by looking at the review aggregator scores. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * After this edit, by an IP, likely the same person whose edits I objected to at the beginning of this section, and after I reverted the IP on the note he or she added, I made this edit describing the review aggregators as having mostly assigned a positive review; it's the same point as Betty's wording, but with different and shorter phrasing. It's perhaps the best compromise for the "generally positive" aspect at this point in time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Section break
Speaking of the IP (the original IP), he or she returned to update the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus wording; as you can see, Rotten Tomatoes has gone from stating "partly succeeds" to "mostly succeeds at it," which is significant and is no doubt due to the Lucy score having risen significantly from where it was on that site. This is just further reason to stay away from "mixed" wording for the film's reception. But at the same time, it still remains that no new sources have commented on a change in critical reception to the film or have reported the film as having received generally positive reviews, so I am also still staying away from that wording. The film, however, has been a critical success, as is clear by the review aggregators, and so, after rejecting "mixed to positive" and "mixed" wording being added to the lead, as seen here and here, I simply added to the lead that it is a critical success; added on to the box office part so that it reads as "critical and box office success." Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't read all of the above lengthy discussion, but with Lucy, a film with an international cast and locations, being shown all over the world and reviews having been and to-be written in nearly every language imaginable, I'm wondering if there should be a clarifying mention that the scores and percentages presented are for English-language reviewers, to be considerate of WP:WORLDVIEW. 5Q5 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We usually don't comment on that aspect in the Critical reception section. If there is a WP:Reliable source commenting on the general feel that non-English reviewers and non-English audiences have for the film, it's of course good to mention that (preferably in the first paragraph). Maybe Betty has an opinion on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

, regarding this that I reverted you on here in the lead, with a followup note here pointing out that the review aggregators have judged Lucy positively, and that the The Fifth Element also polarized critics but is a critical success, what solid argument do you have that "critical success" should not be in the lead for the film Lucy? From what I've stated above, such as my "12:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)" post, it's clear that "mixed" should not be in the lead for the critical reception. Rotten Tomatoes recently changed its critical consensus for Lucy because the film has steadily risen to a 64% positive score on that site, and might still rise. Given the Rotten Tomatoes score having increased significantly and the Metacritic score rating the film as having received "generally positive reviews" (though barely), it is obvious that calling reception to Lucy "mixed" is not too accurate anymore. Not to mention that, technically, reception to any film is mixed (meaning it's gotten good and bad reviews somewhere). Fact is, judging by the review aggregators, which are what many WP:Reliable sources based their "mixed" reports on for the film when these review aggregators were reporting a mixed score, Lucy has now received mainly positive critical reviews...which is a critical success, though not a major critical success. And calling it that in the lead is more accurate than using Metacritic's wording that it got "generally positive reviews"; the review aggregators both being in the 60 range, not too close to 70, for this film, don't exactly translate to "generally positive reviews." But they do translate to "mostly" or "mainly" positive reviews. Stating "mostly" or "mainly" can give a "generally" vibe, however, so I settled for "critical success." And we shouldn't use "mixed to positive" because no WP:Reliable sources use that wording for this film, if for any film. Not mentioning the critical review aspect of the film in the lead also is not a good option; this is because, per WP:Lead, it should be there (a summary of that aspect of the article), and because editors will continue trying to add their own, likely-to-be-inaccurate summary of the critical reception to the lead. And going back to the polarizing aspect of the film, "polarizing" does not simply mean a divide between critics in this case; see my "10:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)" post above. I might mention in the Critical reception section that there are two kinds of polarity regarding the film.

Anyway, I called you to this talk page to explain, and to offer you a chance to make your case. For this matter, don't start engaging in WP:Edit warring, which you've often done at film articles. Make your case here and see if anyone agrees with you. That's how WP:Consensus works. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

With this edit, I updated the hidden note, mentioning the E! source. And with this edit (followup edits here, here and here), I summarized the critical review matter more accurately, removing the "critical success" aspect, and adding "main positively" and other aspects in its place. As noted in that edit summary, I took the approach of the leads for the The Fifth Element and Salt (2010 film) articles; for how those articles looked at the time of my making these changes (meaning right now), here and here are WP:Permalinks. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

5Q5 and others: With this edit, LawrencePrincipe added what French reviewers have thought of the film, and that's fine...per Manual of Style/Film. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest update: With this edit, I added that early reviews for the film were described positive and mixed; despite what I stated above about adding both, it seems best to take care of the "mixed" aspect, since anyone searching for how the film did with critics will mostly come upon a source describing the reviews as mixed, which is before the film rose and stayed at positive scores on the review aggregators; this answers the question a person may have as to why the review aggregators no longer report "mixed." Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Forgot it was September; fixed my dates regarding what I stated in my "05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lucy's ending voiceover
I remember it as ''Life was given to us a billion years ago. Now you know what you can do with it.'' Anyone else or am I alone on this? Just a moment, my cell phone is ringing. There's a text message: "Time will tell. — Lucy." 5Q5 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, good one about the text msg. The voiceover you mentioned is correct I believe. Lasersharp (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Genre
Wouldn't this be a French sci-fi action film... Not just 'action'?

In regards to the movie being solely 'French', what criteria is needed to define this? For example, American actors and American distribution could make it French-American, I'm not sure though. Any thoughts?

--JT2958 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter on the actors, it depends on the production companies. In this case, it's a french one. As for genres, try doing research and seeing what professional film reviewers are saying about the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Cast section details and the Soundtrack section
I was going to state, "Since I have a feeling that Gomuse17 is going to revert again without discussion, I have brought this matter to the talk page." Too late; he already has.

With this edit, Gomuse17 blocked out the detail that Angelina Jolie was originally cast as Lucy, insisting that it should go in the Production section, added a bunch of non-WP:Notables (or at least people who don't have their own Wikipedia articles even if they are WP:Notable) to the Cast section, and added a Soundtrack section. As seen in this and this edit, I unblocked the Jolie bit, noting that it is common practice to include casting information in the Cast section (see The Dark Knight (film) and Edge of Tomorrow (film) articles, for examples), I removed some of the non-WP:Notables (since it's common that the Cast sections of Wikipedia articles, film or otherwise, exclude them), added a hidden note that it is better that the non-WP:Notables be sourced so that people can know that they indeed starred in the film, and I moved the Soundtrack section to near the end of the article because I don't think it's as important as most of the other sections in the article (with the exception of the Possible sequel and Graphic novel sections, and I would be fine with it being placed ahead of those); I also noted that I moved that section because I don't commonly see a Soundtrack section in WP:Good or WP:Featured film articles (though I did mention that the WP:Good film article Jennifer's Body that I worked on has a Soundtrack section because someone added it there). Gomuse17 reverted me here (partial revert) and here, insisting that the bit I added to the Cast section is "not how it works," and that it's common for WP:Good and WP:Featured film articles to have a Soundtrack section. I reverted again. I don't see how it's best to move the Jolie bit to the Production section, when the Cast section is the most accessible section for casting information, and many (perhaps the majority of) readers are going to disregard the Production section in favor of the Cast section. And for the record, I don't object to having a Soundtrack section in the article, but I do feel that it's unnecessary and that it should not come ahead of any of the sections, except for the Possible sequel and Graphic novel sections, if we are to keep it.

I'll query WP:Film for opinions on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the first Gomuse17 edit I linked to above is a partial revert; in that edit, he has not returned all of the WP:Non-notables, and has so far left the Soundtrack section where I originally placed it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Cast-related content can be covered in different ways. It can be included in the "Cast" section as part of each bullet or as paragraphs below the list of actors and their roles. Or it can be included in a "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. It can depend on the kind of content. For example, at Panic Room, I have a "Cast" section and some casting detail in the "Production" section. There is some redundancy and some new information, such as Kidman's injury being mentioned in passing in "Cast" but detailed more in "Production".


 * As for the "Soundtrack" section, it again depends on the content. A soundtrack and a musical score can be interchangeable in general use, I believe. MOS:FILM has some guidelines on this matter. I do think that the soundtrack here is not very important and can belong toward the end. It may not even be worth having a track listing since the tracks have very bland names. A listing is useful especially to link to famous songs or the performing artists. It may be worth searching for coverage about the score for this film to see if it warrants being a part of "Production" or being kept separate. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Erik. I appreciate you offering your opinion on this. As is currently seen with the Lucy (2014 film) article, we don't have both a Cast and Casting section; nor does it seem that we need one. MOS:PARAGRAPHS is generally against a subsection for a one-sentence matter or a matter that only requires a few sentences (probably even if the sentences are long). In this particular case, it seems better to me that the Jolie material go in the Cast section; I already noted why I feel that way above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is the only casting detail, why not place it in the "Production" section? That section can cover the process of actors joining and leaving the cast. I've done this a few times when the details were too sparse or random for the "Cast" section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it is the only casting detail (I haven't yet looked for more), I feel it should be in the Cast section for the reasons I stated above; "I don't see how it's best to move the Jolie bit to the Production section, when the Cast section is the most accessible section for casting information, and many (perhaps the majority of) readers are going to disregard the Production section in favor of the Cast section." So that's how I feel about the matter. I'll go along with WP:Consensus on the matter, but going along with it doesn't mean I agree. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In other words, I don't like casting information buried (seemingly hidden) in the Production section. And since a Casting heading is unneeded in this case, it certainly isn't casting information as readily accessible in the Production section as it is in the Cast section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a short summary: Hope this clarifies. Gomuse17 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, for my first edit, what I did was: edit out some words, update the box office, revise the cast list & roles as per billing, suggest the Jolie part to be included under the production section instead (with a hidden note), and also add a soundtrack section after the production section.
 * However, Flyer22 decided to undo the Cast section edit, citing that "there is no need to include the Angelina Jolie part in the Production section; common practice is to include stuff like in the Cast section" & "we don't need all these non-notables in the Cast section", and also shifted the Soundtrack section for reason that "it is not common that such a section is in WP:Good or WP:Featured film articles".
 * Regarding the 1st revert, I re-edited the cast list as per WP:Notable and added the official production notes as supporting ref (my bad that I didn't include it in the first edit). For info on the original casting (Jolie), my opinion is that it is more appropriate for its inclusion in the Production section as what most of the film articles have done, and also per WP:MOSFILM.
 * As for the reason for the 2nd revert, there is a long list of film articles with the Soundtrack section placed after the Production section (or as "music" sub-section) - This (GA), this and this are some examples.


 * I pretty much stated that above, except with a different angle. But then again, I suppose that's the point. I give my view; you give your view. Anyway, how is it you "suggest[ing] the Jolie part to be included under the production section," when you are insisting (not simply suggesting) that it be included in that section, going so far as to state that the Jolie part being in the Cast section is "not how it works"? I pointed out to you that it being in that section is "how it works," and you reverted again anyway. I've also pointed out above with examples that it is "how it works," and Erik has stated similarly. And, no, including the casting detail in the Production section is not what most Wikipedia film articles have done, unless it's by a small majority. As easily seen in many Wikipedia film articles, it is just as common that the casting information is in the Cast or Casting section, whether the Casting section is a subsection of the Production section or not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, my Cast section edit was not a complete "undo." I added in that hidden note, and I left the WP:Notable people unreferenced (easier to check up on them, such as their Wikipedia articles), referencing the non-WP:Notables instead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And, Gomuse17, I am not done with this discussion; I will unblock the Jolie part in the Cast section unless a compelling reason not to have it in that section is made, or unless WP:Consensus is formed against it being there. As noted above, having it in the Cast section is perfectly fine. And for two days now that material has been inaccessible to readers of the Lucy (2014 film) article, unless they open up that section and see it there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * STATicVapor, given what has been stated above about the Soundtrack section, why do you think it's "A more normal order of sections" to have the Soundtrack section placed where Gomuse17 placed it? I'm obviously not seeing how it is a better fit placed so high up as though it is more important than the Critical reception and Box office sections. Erik feels similarly. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that's settled then. This will be my last input on the matter. This debate arises mainly because you took offense at my hidden note edit. Hence, you went on to revert my entire Cast section edit and also changed the placement of the Soundtrack section (with arguments that i felt are a bit of a stretch). Also, for the record, I did not deliberately hide the Jolie info - just thinking probably it will be more obvious for other editors to take notice and then move it to Production section to make the article flow. Anyway I'm puzzled how I'm "misguided" and incorrect stating that is not how it works when again WP:MOSFILM has advised that "recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations" goes under Production section? To add on, The Dark Knight (film) and Edge of Tomorrow (film) aren't really good supporting examples as they are articles with well-elaborated casting details (anyway i suppose their formats aren't right either). For Lucy's case, the sparse casting details (Jolie part) seems random and doesn't tie-up with the character description in Cast section. That said, I have no objection to the Jolie part taken out of the hidden note for now and if WP:Consensus eventually decides the Jolie part to remain in the Cast section, then so be it (I stand by my opinion nonetheless). As for Soundtrack section, i think the examples I've given is fairly self-explanatory, and it's not a matter of importance of the sections, but linking up the correlated sections (Production and Soundtrack (or music) per se). Thanks STATicVapor for understanding that. Gomuse17 (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not at all aware of this thread. I barely reviewed this page for the first time in about three or four days. From a quick view of some Good articles such as The Dark Knight Rises and Captain America: The First Avenger, I saw that the music section usually will appear before the release section. I do not feel as if it is more important, but this seems to be how it is usually organized. The music of the film is also related to its production, which makes sense to have them in close proximity. Let me set the record straight, that my edit summary was more related to the novel and sequel section, which were placed awkwardly high for some reason, when the sequel or future sections usually come last. I really have no stake in where the music section appears, if there is a good reason for it being somewhere else. STATic message me!   13:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Gomuse17, as noted above, I clearly objected to more than your hidden note, and I had good reasons for reverting you, which is also clear from above. Have I reverted your other changes to the Cast section, since you cut out the Non-WP:Notables and this discussion was started? No. I am mostly fine with those changes; my only objections to them are the Jolie part and sourcing the WP:Notable cast; they don't need sourcing, and it's not common practice to source a WP:Notable cast that are clearly in the film. If it was a matter of the film not having yet been released, then okay. That type of sourcing is common. As for not deliberately hiding the Jolie information, you placed it in a hidden note; that is deliberately hiding it. But you mean that your focus was not to keep that material from readers. Either way, you reverted me twice on making it unhidden, stating that having the detail there is "not how it works." The way that you are wrong in that assertion is clear from the examples I provided above and from what Erik stated. It's also clear by WP:FILMMMOS, which states, in part, in its Cast section: "Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. If necessary, build toward a consensus."


 * If WP:FILMMMOS was not clear that either way (mine or yours) is acceptable, then neither I nor Erik would be objecting to your "not how it works" assertion. There are a variety of WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles showing that the type of casting information you objected to in the Cast section is common and perfectly fine. I understand that the The Dark Knight (film) and Edge of Tomorrow (film) articles have a lot more casting details, but that does not keep me from feeling that the Jolie bit fits better in the Cast section than in the Production section; above, I already explained why I feel that way. The Jolie bit being there does not seem out of place to me; seems like the most logical place a reader would want to find/look for that material. And it's not like it can't be rearranged (presented as a sub-bullet point under the "Scarlett Johansson as Lucy" sentence, or as prose at the end of the section). It's not like more casting details cannot be added to that section to fill it out. I am still building this article; others are still building this article, and I don't mind us (meaning you and me) building it together. I stand by the Soundtrack matter; I just don't see why it should be placed so high up. If it were a more important soundtrack, then maybe I would see the merit in placing it higher. However, I don't mind much that it's placed higher. I do mind casting details being needless obscured. So, in another day, if there are no objections other than yours, I will unblock the Jolie bit that is in the Cast section.


 * STATicVapor, I don't consider a Music section as the same thing as a Soundtrack section. Music sections usually discuss the matter in prose without looking like a soundtrack. But, like Erik, I agree that the sections can be combined. In my opinion, they should be combined if there are ever two of them, preferably with soundtrack material under a Music heading...with or without the soundtrack template (I prefer "without" for such matters). Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * With this edit, I have unblocked the Jolie bit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As seen here and here, I made the Soundtrack section a subsection of the Production section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: Regarding Jolie, as seen with this edit, apparently Besson has stated that Jolie was not his first choice for the role of Lucy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * With this big edit (followup edits here, here, here and here), I added on to the Jolie bit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * With this edit, Freikorp shortened the soundtrack material; so I don't have to worry about shortening it anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding cites and four linked articles: Themes section
Hi Flyer: There are 4 links in the article section and I am adding a further citation on the new film. Toga and Mazzioti are professors at UCLA and their book also cited is well respected. There is no original research in the text at this time. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, LawrencePrincipe. Read the WP:Original research policy, specifically the WP:Synthesis aspect of it. That is why I reverted you here and here. You are taking matters and tying them to the film Lucy in the absence of WP:Reliable sources doing so. Where are the WP:Reliable sources stating that these are themes of the film, similar to what is stated at Avatar (2009 film)? That is my point. Also, this is a matter for the article talk page, not mine.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Lucy (2014 film)‎" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC) (reposted on Talk:Lucy for discussion as User:Flyer requested by LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC))


 * There is a missing Themes section for Lucy which was initiated with a 3 sentence edit of the following text.


 * Themes
 * The theme of pharmacological enhancement of cognitive and mental capacity (CPH4 for Lucy) is central to the development of plot throughout the film. The use of Ritalin has been applied to increase concentration in patients with cognitive deficits such as attention deficit disorder. Sigmund Freud studied the use of cocaine as a stimulant of cognitive activity prior to discovering its adverse addictive qualities. Enhanced brain activity is observed by patients who receive the benefits of oxygen rich breathing environments in small percentages of cumulative brain activity.[Toga and Mazzioti. Human Brain Imaging. Second edition.] The use of psychoactive drugs and alcohol for recreational purposes was studied by Timothy Leary in the mid-twentieth century which became a theme in 1960s subculture movements.[Thompson, Fear and Loathing.]


 * This material contains 4 links to supportive Wikipedia articles and 2 published citations for material covered in the plot of the film. User:Flyer disagees and believes that issues of NOR should apply in spite of the 4 links and 2 citations included, against WP:NOR. Move discussion to Talk. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The above section was taken from my talk page. LawrencePrincipe, for wider input, you might want to ask WP:Film to weigh in on this matter. The editors watching this article are generally silent when it comes to weighing in on disputes with the article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22, Its really up to the other editors at this page to make their own comments. Please keep to the normal format guidelines to make sure that the edit sequence of responses is clear to all editors. My point on NOR is really straightforward. For example, any number of films on Wikipedia mention the use of poems or quotes from books which may appear or are mentioned within the contents of a film. The discussion of such themes is usually not covered in the Plot section and deferred to a Themes section. Since there is currently no Themes section, this short 3 sentence edit was written to mention psychoactive drugs prominent in this film as relevant to their discussion in contemporary society and culture. With 4 Wikipedia links and 2 citations, there is no issue with WP:NOR. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Contacting a relevant WP:WikiProject is a part of WP:Dispute resolution. I don't agree with your addition, and I won't agree with your addition, per the reasons I already stated above. And since you will not contact WP:Film to weigh in, I will. As for formatting, my formatting was correct. See WP:Indent. In the future, do not change my post in this way. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And even if I agree that the section you added is not WP:Original research, since it's not making up matters that have no WP:Reliable sources out there somewhere, there is still the question of whether or not that section belongs in the Lucy (2014 film) article when its text and sources are not specifically about the film Lucy. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Either way, the themes section is not adequately sourced i.e. full name of author, year of publication and publisher, and whether these are articles from a journal (which would require titles for both) or books (which would require page numbers). But to cut to the chase if these sources were published before the release of the film then the section is almost certainly WP:SYNTHESIS since it is the Wikipedia edito connecting the subject matter of the sources to the film, and not the source authors. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unless the sources mention the film by name, then it's synthesis. Someone else has to draw the connection between Freud and Lucy.  You can't make that connection yourself.  Check out Phantasm (film).  In creating that film's themes section, I sourced the statements directly to filmmaker interviews and critical retrospectives.  I'd love to include my spin on the film, but we can only summarize what reliable sources directly say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Morgan Freeman playing the super-scientist while reading and writing massive amounts of science books is also prominently portrayed in the film and could be mentioned in the Themes. This is the full reference for the medical book from the 4-volume series on brain imaging previously cited for completeness:
 * Brain Mapping: The Methods (Hardcover)
 * by Arthur W. Toga (Editor), John C. Mazziotta (Editor)
 * Hardcover: 471 pages
 * Publisher: Academic Press; 1st edition (April 2, 1996)
 * Language: English
 * ISBN-10: 0313302472
 * ISBN-13: 978-0313302473 LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @NinjaRobotPirate; yes, that's correct though my reference was to drugs and Lucy, and not to the Freud part. Use of drugs is a central theme in the play. Throughout the film people die from the drug, people are killed for the drugs, and in the end the audience is told that the world will change as a result of Lucy's using drugs (Lucy's "sacrifice"). Whether its termed as cocaine-like (Freud), or LSD-like, or heroin-like (choose any apt description of the film's CPH4 drug), the film makes drug use a central theme. A short three sentence edit on this supports a Themes section rather than section blanking. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to highlight themes in a film. We simply summarize things that have been discussed by secondary sources. If a critic or academic writes about the themes of science or drugs in the film then we can summarize what they have said, but if no-one discusses themes of the film then we don't either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding missing the point. Your comment above was that references from before the film should be out of bounds in all circumstances. There are many, many exceptions in Wikipedia articles. For example, if the words "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," are used in a film, there is no reason why Wikipedia editors cannot identify the literary sources used for the quotation in a Themes section even though the source may precede the film by many years. Other examples of using famous unidentified quotes recur in many films which could usefully be included in a Themes section. Neither you nor most people would need an outside source to indicate who wrote it; this is not a WP:NOR issue. The same for science. The film already clearly refers to all the science literature being read by Morgan Freeman and by Lucy. Here is one such example by Professor Toga cited above which can be included. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with the others that it is original research. I believe that there can be exceptions to add simple clarifying points where it may be warranted, but here, we cannot devote a whole "Themes" section to sources that precede the film. These sources are being taken and applied to the film where they never mention the film in the first place. Wikipedia does not lead in its coverage; it summarizes what others have covered. We cannot create new connections here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clearly original research. "Use of drugs is a central theme" – according to whom?  Notice the use of passive voice, a clear indicator of oncoming original research.  Unless a critic or academic says it, you can't add it to a Wikipedia article.  LP, if you want to debate your interpretation of this film, post to the IMDB forums.  Wikipedia is a not forum for you to express your views. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a point that has been misattributed to me, I did not say that Wikipedia articles cannot use sources that predate the media. I only said you cannot use sources that predate the media to identify themes simply for the fact they do not identify themes. For instance, slavery is a theme of Gone with the Wind, but neither the film itself nor sources that predate GWTW identify slavery as a theme. Until someone publishes an article that discusses the film in a real-world context then any discussion of themes on Wikipedia is synthesis because it is the editor making the connections, and not reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all editors above for straight talk. My edit was originally based on the review from this morning from The Telegraph (which I will link below) which convinced me of the usefulness of a Themes section dealing with the science aspects of the film. The article refers to the theme of the film as being based on a "philosophical science fiction" thriller. If I back up one step then my original edit could have been:


 * Themes
 * According to The Telegraph in an article from 12 August 2014, the theme of Lucy is philosophical science fiction and is based "on the Kantian model of transcendental idealism." As the author states: "In his 1781 page-turner, the Critique of Pure Reason, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant warned that the human brain, in its pinky-grey feebleness, has to rattle the world into an order it doesn’t possess purely to make sense of it." As Kant is directly quoted in The Telegraph, the threatening prospect of failing to do this is that, “all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves, would disappear.”


 * If preferred, then it can be rewritten (see below). This is the link to save you time: (@Erik, @Betty Logan, @NinjaRobotPirate, @Flyer22) LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of Themes section following The Telegraph review
Full rewrite of section for Themes based on The Telegraph review of 12 August identifying the Theme as "philosophical science fiction" with cite and url. The Telegraph article also identifies the film as science fiction which is added to the Lead introducing the film. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why did you start a separate section for this discussion? Notice that I made it a subsection of the section immediately before it. And why do you think we need a very short Themes section? MOS:PARAGRAPHS is generally against sections or subsections for such little material, and the Critical reception section already addresses themes that are in the film. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So, no, I am not fine with this bit you added. People just keep tossing in useless small sections that don't show that they will be needed years from now. If you are going to create a Themes section, then do it the right way and create a section that touches on more than just one author's interpretation of what the film's themes are. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One reason that I am iffy about a Themes section for this article is because I know that it will be redundant to the Critical reception section, such as regarding the ten percent of brain myth. On a side note: We also should not give WP:Undue weight to a genre that an author has cited for the film, as you did here, using the same The Telegraph source. That stated, I've seen other WP:Reliable sources refer to the film as science fiction, so I am not that bothered by that addition. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is WP:UNDUE and have taken the relevant part and added it to the critical reception section where it follows on from another critic that discusses the metaphysical implications of the plot. Betty Logan (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The larger issue. If the longer range plan is to move this article towards a peer review article then both of you know that most films at that level do have a Themes section. The Critical reception section is now up to 6 fully developed paragraphs which already identifies Besson's favored view of the three themes of the film as bridging Leon to Inception to 2001. This seems to allow answering both your basic concerns about weight, and it addresses what is rapidly becoming an overly large Critical reception section (as Flyer suggests, the box office response will likely fuel many more reviews). Transfering the last Besson paragraph in Critical reception to start a responsible three part Themes section has a reasonable basis to support it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Most Wikipedia film articles put through WP:Peer review do not have a Themes section. There are many examples of WP:Good and WP:Featured film articles that don't have a Themes section. Often, such a section is not needed because the film was not deep enough or the themes are clearly noted in the Critical reception section. I'm very tempted to remove the The Telegraph bit from the Critical reception section and make that section back into five paragraphs. I don't see why the The Telegraph part you added is needed. The Besson part fits best in the Critical reception section, where similar comparisons are being made, and, in that source, he does not call those matters (his intention of blending the aforementioned three films) as themes of Lucy. The Critical reception section is not "rapidly becoming an overly large Critical reception"; it has been stable for weeks, and it covers just about all that needs to be covered regarding critical reception to the film. Furthermore, various Wikipedia film articles have a Critical reception section that is of five or six paragraphs long, including Avatar (2009 film). Some even have subsections. The Telegraph bit is currently cutting into a paragraph that is about comparing the film to other films and characters; so it's a little misplaced as it is, though Betty did a decent job of fitting it in that section. I might make a Themes section, if I come across WP:Reliable sources (as in more than one) noting that they are discussing the themes. But there is no rush, which is another reason why I am likely to remove the The Telegraph piece. And I did not suggest that the box office response will likely fuel many more reviews; where did you understand me to imply that? Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't completely gel with the flow of the paragraph and needs to be a bit more integrated (so feel free to play around with the organization/wording), but I think my revision got the weighting more or less right. I also feel it is much less intrusive than it was before. I have nothing against a "themes" section per se and have even added such sections to articles. The bottom line though is that you have to have something substantial to work with; if you don't—as is the case here—it is better not to add one. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a large series of books out there with titles like "The Science of Matrix" and "The Science of Star Trek", etc., and perhaps there might be one on the Science of Lucy in a year or two. I was familiar with the "Ten percent" article you mentioned and found its contents very speculative. That was when I looked up the medical Brain Imaging material which had a very large existing science literature to support it and to avoid WP:NOR issues. If both of you are stating that its too early for a Themes section, then I am likely to go along with you on that point at this time. The Besson statement on the three part organization of the film suggests a fairly nice approach to possibly reorganizing the Critical reception section itself into 3 subsections. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I read your "16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)" reply for the first time several minutes ago; I had put off reading it to attend to other matters on and off Wikipedia. Instead of removing the The Telegraph piece, I moved it to a more suitable paragraph -- the paragraph already discussing the capability of the mind -- and returned the section to five paragraphs. There is no need to split the Critical reception section into three subsections, at least at this point in time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 3: Current status of Themes related reviews of Lucy
With this big edit (followup edits here, here, here and here), I moved the Besson statement to a Writing section. The Writing section can perhaps be expanded to an adequate Writing and themes section. However, since it's in the Production section, I'd prefer that the themes noted there only be cited to Besson if he specifically mentions them. But if enough critics comment on what they think are themes of the film, it might be best to create a Themes section outside of the Production section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Flyer22; The three part Besson Themes summary looked intriguing, though the mainstream reviews have not matched up with it one for one. Leon and Inception are the least explored thematic tie-ins Besson mentions, and the 2001 science fiction genre is possibly the most popular thematic tie-in among existing reviews. The most flattering Themes article was in The New Yorker which compared Besson to Terrence Malick. The other films mentioned for referenced thematic points of contact are Matrix, Limitless, Transcendence, Arthur Clarke's 2001, and Tree of Life. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know which films are most compared to Lucy. Right now, that matter (comparison of films) is more of a critical reception matter, which is why it's only covered in the Critical reception section. I don't think that comparing Besson to another director, screenwriter, and producer is a "themes of the film" aspect, however. And thanks for creating a new subsection for this discussion, though I don't think it was necessary; I'm more of a "create one once the section becomes too long" kind of person, especially since subsections can make a section look longer than it actually is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Flyer22; It seems that if you are saying that you have 2-3 citations for each one the 3 films which Besson mentions in his quote, then it would seem to work as a fully cited Themes section. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I am stating. As was mentioned above, I mean that we should have sources actually discussing themes of the film, calling those aspects themes, instead of us interpreting them as themes and placing them under a Themes section. And I've obviously elaborated on that in this latest discussion section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

LawrencePrincipe, regarding this and this, why are you so intent on having a Themes section for this article? As has already been made clear, it is WP:Undue weight to have a Themes section based on one person's opinion (unless it's what Besson has stated), the Critical reception section already addresses the themes, and we should not unnecessarily cut information from that section just to create a Themes section. What you added regarding Christian Jarrett is completely unnecessary since it is redundant to what is already stated in the Critical reception section, which is why I am tempted to remove it. That section, as is made clear above, is big enough as it is. We do not need to, and should not, keep elaborating on the ten percent of the brain myth. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Erik, NinjaRobotPirate and Betty Logan, who all previously weighed in on LawrencePrincipe's goal for a Themes section, do you mind weighing in on this latest attempt (what I stated in my "04:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)" post) by LawrencePrincipe? Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You had previously brought up the possibility of eventually starting a Themes section. The appearance of a book length study on the subject which mentions Lucy directly written by an MD (Jarrett) appears to be notable in its own right for a Themes section. Previously there were only short magazine articles. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the possibility if needed. I fail to see how a Themes section is at all needed in this case. I reiterate "it is WP:Undue weight to have a Themes section based on one person's opinion (unless it's what Besson has stated), the Critical reception section already addresses the themes, and we should not unnecessarily cut information from that section just to create a Themes section. What you added regarding Christian Jarrett is completely unnecessary since it is redundant to what is already stated in the Critical reception section." Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems small enough to fit under reception. In addition, MOS:FILM has this to say: "Themes are unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a film's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature." I think this is a criticism of a plot element more so than discussion of a theme, which would again make it more suitable to reception. I'm certainly not opposed to themes sections in film articles, and I've started a few myself. The problem is that I'm not sure we've really got enough here to warrant one. I can look for sources that discuss the themes, but I'm kind of busy right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, NinjaRobotPirate, I don't have a problem with a Themes section when it's warranted, but I don't see that one is warranted in this case. These matters are covered in their appropriate sections -- the Writing and Critical reception sections. We don't need yet another section going over those aspects. The other problem I have with LawrencePrincipe's Christian Jarrett addition is what I stated above -- the addition is not relaying anything that is not already relayed in the Critical reception section; that is why I want the Christian Jarrett addition removed. We don't need a bunch of quotes from people essentially stating the same thing. We already have the neuropsychology professor Barbara Sahakian commenting about the ten percent of the brain myth; why do we then need Christian Jarrett telling us that "The truth is that we use all of them (100%); there is no spare neural matter lying around waiting to be given a job to do. This has been confirmed by thousands of brain scans"? Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The weight associated with a book length study adds value to the material in the Critical reception section. It builds upon the contrary view which is opposite to the one which Besson decided to thematically base his film on. The thematic response to Besson is also the reversal of what is being seen for the other new science fiction film Interstellar for which Dr. Kip Thorne wrote a book-length study endorsing the science fiction portrayed in that film. Weight and notability associated with these subjects is normally enough to suggest a Themes section. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * LawrencePrincipe, what you quoted from the book is essentially stated by others in that section. That it is an author of a book stating the matter does not make the quote any more valuable or any less redundant. I cannot be convinced that we should have a Themes section in the case of this article; to explain why would be repeating myself. The themes of the film are clear from two different sections -- the Writing and Critical reception sections. We should not split material from those two sections just to create a Themes heading so that we can bludgeon readers over the head with the fact that "Yes, these are the themes of the film." And we should not create another section that essentially states the same thing as two other sections. I have been explicitly clear above. And if you want to debate this further, then I will invite WP:Film to this discussion as I did before and/or seek another form of WP:Dispute resolution explaining both of our sides in a neutral tone. I cut and moved your Christian Jarrett material to the Marketing section, per what I've stated above and in that edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I clearly have the article/talk page on my WP:Watchlist; so there is no need to keep pinging me to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There sure are a lot of reviews, interviews, and articles about this film. Here's some stuff that I found in a simple Google query:


 * Exclusive: Luc Besson Talks Lucy from Empire. Not too much about themes exactly, but it does identify the film has having similar themes as Nikita and Leon.
 * Lucy trailer: another high for Scarlett Johansson? from The Guardian. I'm not sure how much I like this source, because it discusses the trailer and not the film itself.  Nonetheless, it identifies a theme that runs through Johansson's last three films: deconstructing her stardom.
 * Lucy and the enduring appeal of the instant upgrade from The Dissolve. This is a pretty long and involved one that discusses the theme of instant upgrades – characters who are instantly granted superpowers without effort.
 * I (don't) love 'Lucy,' but Luc Besson's latest film is fast and fun from Haaretz. Female empowerment is the main theme.
 * A Turbo Brain Tackles Underworld Brawn from The New York Times. Johansson says the themes were irrelevant to her performance, because the film is about her physical journey.
 * Luc Besson’s Surprisingly Metaphysical “Lucy” from The New Yorker. Characteristically long and involved essay from The New Yorker.  Film has metaphysical themes that are borrowed from Terrence Malick.
 * Why Lucy Was a Big Disappointment from Wired. Seems to be more about what it's not.  But it's sort of interesting.  I never heard of this "weaponized woman" trope before.
 * Scarlett Johansson Unleashes the Power of Her Mind in Lucy from IGN. Interview with Johansson.  Human connectivity is also a theme.

I checked, and I don't think any of these are currently in the article. I could do some more searches later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the Writing section already mentions themes, then I would prefer (as I noted above) that the Writing section be titled Writing and themes if we are to include more themes material. I still don't feel that we need a Themes section for this article, but if you can construct a good "Writing and themes" section (I don't doubt that you can) that is not too redundant to the Critical reception section, I won't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me. I did that once in a television article, and some IP kept reverting me to put it somewhere else.  It was frustrating, and I eventually gave in to let him put it wherever he wanted.  I don't fuss over where it goes as much since then.  The source that gives me the most pause is the one that exclusively comments on the trailer.  I just don't know if that's something that we should cite when discussing the film.  If we make it clear that the author is discussing the trailer and has not seen the completed film, I think that would alleviate my concerns.  Have you guys seen the film yet?  I haven't.  If I wrote about the themes, it would be helpful to know that someone could correct me if I misinterpreted a plot point.  I think I did a fairly decent job over at Cold in July (film) without having seen that film (I wrote everything but the plot in that article), but I didn't have to discuss themes or plotting much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Above in this subsection, I mentioned that I moved LawrencePrincipe's Christian Jarrett addition to the Marketing section because part of his addition is about the main poster and I'd cut the redundant part. The Marketing section has critical commentary on the trailers and main poster. Any new information focusing on the trailers can fit there. That is, if it doesn't fit better in the Box office section, which notes the trailers as having contributed to the success of the film. Yes, I've seen the film. As for the placement of the themes material section, I did mention in my "16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)" post above the following: "[S]ince [the Writing section is] in the Production section, I'd prefer that the themes noted there only be cited to Besson if he specifically mentions them. But if enough critics comment on what they think are themes of the film, it might be best to create a Themes section outside of the Production section." These days, I would rather not have the writing and themes material separated. But do you think that it fits fine in the Production section as "Writing and themes"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Putting the discussion of the trailer in the marketing section sounds perfect. I should have thought of that.  Thanks for injecting that bit of common sense.  I don't have any problem with putting the rest of it in Writing.  Sometimes I like to move the themes to an independent section when there's enough third-party commentary, but it's frustrating to have related content strewn about the article in small, independent sections.  Keeping it all in Writing will prevent that.  If the themes overtake Writing, then we can talk about moving it out.  I still haven't read the entirety of every listed article, but I at least skimmed through them.  Plus, I'm pretty sure I can locate more if I pick better search terms.  Transhumanism seems to be a major theme, so I expect there will be explicit discussion of that somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You've seen me cite MOS:Paragraphs more than once, so you know how I am about unnecessarily creating subsections. As for the placement in this case, I wondered if it makes sense to have the extra content as part of the Production section since it will be other people's take on the themes, and not Besson's take. To me, "production" signals what the creators' intended, not other people's interpretations of what the creators intended. But, yeah, it's not like we can't have the "Writing and themes" content as part of the Production section because of that. So, yeah, I'm with you on this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

10 % of brain myth
A short mentioning, that the "10 percent of our cerebral capacity" premise is a popular but misguided myth would be appropriate: Or just link to Wikipedia's own article: Ten percent of brain myth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.75.196 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NubJ2ThK_U


 * That topic is already addressed in the Critical reception section. The link to the Ten percent of brain myth Wikipedia article is there. Since it's there, it's not in the see also section; per WP:See also, matters already linked higher generally should not be linked in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Original research
The plot says: "During the plane ride she starts to disintegrate as her cells destabilize from consuming a sip of champagne". When is this ever explained in the movie? 84.210.10.52 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lucy" becomes the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film.
Dear administrators,

Everything is outlined on my title. So you should change the information. Please look up the Wanted and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider pages and you could see their box office is lower than Lucys. In fact, Lucy according to the Wikipedia information, is the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film. I just follow your logic.

Best regards, Edouard J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.174.53.130 (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Boxoffice Mojo that honor falls to The Hunger Games films. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright then, why dont you change the wrong information so? About Wanted and Toomb Raider.... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.231.170.240 (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I think its about worldwide and not national, so what you show me is not solution about what I mentionned previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.231.170.240 (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the claim altogether since there is conflicting information. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding "the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film" part, that was vandalism (or seemingly vandalism), which I reverted.


 * Regarding "the third highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film" part that Betty removed, I think that the sources are defining these matters differently. The Box Office Mojo, for example, states "Action Heroine" while the Los Angeles Times source states "female-driven action film." The Hunger Games films are not usually categorized as action films, not even in their Wikipedia articles, though they sometimes are categorized as action films in news sources. Katniss Everdeen, on the other hand, is very often described as an action heroine. See this Google search for "The Hunger Games action film." The Los Angeles Times source is focusing on films that are female-driven action films, not on heroines that may be described as action heroines; so it's not necessarily wrong. I'll query WP:Film about weighing in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the entirety of the debate, but superficially it seems that the IP has a specific perspective about a certain accomplishment Lucy has achieved. But, the IP (Edouard J) didn't properly source the claim, or properly form a clear, sourced argument. Now I assume we are somehow tasked to find sources that support or refute his statement? No, that's his burden. In his initial statement above, it seems he wants us to compare box office totals from Lucy to box office totals from Tomb Raider, a 13-year-old movie, to derive some sort of meaning about the success of Lucy. That's ridiculous and it is totally original research  It's not our job to figure out the inflation adjustment for the gross totals and arrive at a financial conclusion that supports his worldview. That's the job of professional writers, and specifically media/movie analysts. Find a few secondary, independent reliable sources that call Lucy "the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film" (adjusted for inflation of course) and then we might have a topic worthy of discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for weighing in, Cyphoidbomb, and thank you to any others who weigh in. When I contacted WP:Film about this matter, I meant for them to focus on Betty's removal (noted above) and my response to that (above). Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Deriving a conclusion from sources that have different takes on the matter is WP:SYNTHESIS. "Source A says this, but Source B says this, so the truth must be somewhere in the middle." If we want to attribute a specific claim to a specific writer at a specific newspaper, that's fine, but we couldn't state that as a fact with only one source and such a narrow definition. If I'm still not getting the point, let me know and I'll just go to sleep, since I've been far too sleepy since I woke up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Cyphoidbomb (I'll stop pinging you via WP:Echo to this discussion after this and assume you either have this talk page WP:Watchlisted or will check back here), what I mean is that the Los Angeles Times source calls Lucy the third highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film. Betty removed that line, calling it an "[e]rroneous claim" because of the Box Office Mojo "Action Heroine" list. I'm arguing that the Los Angeles Times source is focusing on films that are female-driven action films, not on heroines that may be described as action heroines; therefore, the Los Angeles Times source is not necessarily wrong. For example, a list of female-driven action films is different than a list of action heroines in [so and so] film. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If the LA Times do define a "female driven action film" in the way you say I find it very arbitrary. Box Office Mojo regard Lucy as an "action heroine" film and rank it in 6th place along, and I don't regard the LA Times as inherently more correct than Box Office Mojo in this instance. Both positions depend entirely on subjective criteria—rather than a provable fact—and has clearly confused two editors already. I'm not that invested in the article to be honest, I just thought I was helping to address the IP's concerns, so if anyone wants to restore the sentence I removed then that's not really an issue for me. However, I will say that if this is going to be documented in the article then ideally both ranks should be included (to reflect two equally valid perspectives) or it should be worded in a way that is consistent with both viewpoints. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, Betty Logan; I held off on reading and then responding to your latest reply to take care of some other matters and to relax (you know that my recent WP:ANI matters are a part of that). I know that you were trying to help, as usual, and I think that your removing the text is likely a help. And I appreciate you helping out with this article even though you are not that interested it. I got the feeling that WP:Film is generally not interested in this article, and I appreciate when they help out with it. Regarding the topic at hand, it's just that, to me at least, it seems that these two sources are defining this matter differently. Like you, I was also thinking that both view points should be included, per the WP:Verifiability policy. It seems that the bit that Tiller54 added to the Scarlett Johansson article about this topic should also be removed for the time being. Looking for what other WP:Reliable sources state about this topic is something that should also be looked into. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry me too for my late reply, but to be honest, I just saw that Lucy was behind Tomb Raider and Wanted movie as regard box office, but in their own wikipedia pages the box office was lower than Lucy. That's it. If I did a mistake forgive me, but, for me it was really a nonsense to say Lucy is the 3rd behind Tomb Raider and Wanted, meanwhile Lucy get higher result... English is not my mother tongue, and I dont have an american culture, so maybe this fact leads by my mistaken action. Best regards, Edouard J. (and BTW my sources are from wikipedia itself, so please, don't offense me. ;-) Update --> Wanted $341,433,252[4], Lara Croft: Tomb Raider$274,703,340[2] and Lucy is now $378.1 million[4]. Check it by yourslef you could see. Am I right, or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.231.170.236 (talk • contribs)

Note: I removed the aforementioned bit from the Scarlett Johansson article (followup edit here). Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood.com commentary, and noting Lucy as most powerful
As seen with this link, Rusted AutoParts removed a Hollywood.com source commenting on Lucy's strength. He stated, "opinion of an online blogger." And I invited him to discuss this matter on the talk page, stating, "There is nothing wrong with including this Hollywood.com source. See MOS:FILM." The source passes as a WP:Reliable source. And as seen at MOS:FILM, the Critical reception section is not restricted to only professional film critics. We commonly include other types of media commentators in the Critical reception section, or in a different section (such as the "Audience response"; as noted at MOS:FILM, even the audience's response is acceptable in the Critical reception section). I'm the one who included the Hollywood.com commentary, and I did it because there has been a lot of online talk about Lucy being the strongest film character ever. So seeing a WP:Reliable source commenting on this assertion, I decided to include that aspect in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Lucy has been compared to superheros by other sources as well. This 2014 Moviepilot source states, "As of this moment, Lucy is the most powerful superhero on the planet." Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And, yes, I know that, like the Moviepilot Wikipedia article currently states, "much of their content comes from fan contributors." So I wouldn't call the Moviepilot source WP:Reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, commentary describing a character "maybe" being the strongest created just comes off as one's opinion and not one reflected by many others. A majority of what I hear about this film is what it ripped off from those movies, rather than being compared to them. Rusted AutoParts 15:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Rusted AutoParts (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this article is on your WP:Watchlist), thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me instead of reverting and then discussing. Since the Critical reception section is full of opinions, it seems that you are arguing that the Hollywood.com commentary is WP:Undue weight. I can see your point on that, but other WP:Reliable sources do address Lucy's godlike abilities, mostly when stating that she was far too strong for the main villain and his henchmen. Because of that and the final paragraph of the Critical reception section noting that "Lucy has been compared to various films" while citing Akira, it seemed reasonable to me to add the Hollywood.com commentary which compares her abilities to other powerful beings in films. Even before that addition, that final paragraph compares her to Neo from The Matrix. And since it mentions Akira, adding the Hollywood.com commentary, which also mentions Akira, seemed a fit to me. When I added the text, I did find it a bit trivial, but, like I stated, there have been online debates about Lucy being the most powerful film character ever or superhero ever; and so, when I saw a WP:Reliable source suggesting it, I decided to add it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sequel update since 2015 ?
Any new updates on a sequel in development since the comments made in 2015 ?

Anything more recent than that ?

69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't believe this ...
It's a B movie. It was kinda entertaining but jeeze, this article is ten times longer than Birth of a Nation or  Metropolis. Talk about trivia ! Oh wait, no one wrote about the color of the third assistant cameraman's socks on the fifth day of shooting ! Someone please research that so we can add it !! 116.231.76.144 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)