Talk:Manic Pixie Dream Girl

Examples of MPDG
It seems that Ruby Sparks (2012) should be a paradigmatic example of this? Ruby is conjured up literally from the imagination of the depressed male protagonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB8:2002:1500:FDE5:7510:9B00:48C1 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Source for Zooey/Summer as MPDG? Because I thought the whole plot of that film was that she WASN'T a MPDG. She had her own goals and dreams (so she dumps the main character and proceeds to live that life). 93.182.134.163 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that she is not an MPDG, but the characterization of Summer as this stock character is entirely subjective. But I don't think she should be listed in the article precisely because there are so many other, better examples of the trope. Additionally, the article that was originally sourced is not a good, authoritative source, since it first describes Summer as an MPDG, then explains all the ways in which she is not an MPDG. -Juansmith (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And now this role appears in both the "Examples" and "Counterexamples" sections... sigh.


 * Could she be an example of a Maniac Pixie Dream Girl (an alternative and more interesting type mentioned by Charles Stross in his blog? Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Would Maude from Harold and Maude count? She's _older_, but beyond that I think perhaps a perfect fit? Kaolin fire (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a reference citing her. I'll add it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind captures it pretty well (and has the modern indie elements). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.100.92 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Finding good examples is problematic in that the archetype you're looking for in the term is incompatible with good writing, such that even good MPDG candidates usually have, at the very least, some tacked on motives. For instance, Maude in Harold and Maude clearly has her own goals and agenda, which are revealed (to the protagonist's chagrin) at the end of the film. Even Penny Lane becomes a meta-MPDG, as we and the protagonist see her backstage collapse in her attempt to play that inherently emptying role, not with the protagonist, but with another major character. So, not sure these two examples work, but perhaps they serve to gesture at the point. 69.178.57.36 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the note immediately following this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's "No original research" rules. The article isn't the place to speculate about the scope of the term, but a place to report what reliable sources have said about the scope of the term. THF (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, she's a deconstruction of the MPDG, not a straight example. In that she's genuinely unbalanced, not happy, and not really coping very well with the real world.  Has a little more depth than the typical MPDG.  In other news, when did this wiki become tvtropes?!

I was thinking Lisa from Weird Science is definitely an MPDG. In light of the fact that I'm not quite certain if adding her would fall in the scope of this article as the commenter above referenced, I'll leave it to someone else to determine whether she's a good enough fit to add. Ø (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Ø


 * I guess Summer is an MPDG to an extent, but why choose a Zooey character that's borderline-MPDG when you could go were her more clear-cut MPDG characters (Alison in Yes Man is SO MPDG). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.184.220 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Source for Shirley MacLaine in The Apartment? That character has a pretty dark story, and an awful lot going on. I'd be pretty surprised to see her seriously suggested as a good example. spoko (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Madonna in Who's That Girl (1987 film)? Robert K S (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source says she is, she is. If there are no reliable sources saying she is, she isn't. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because one source says she is, doesn't mean we say she is. Just like with everything else within arts and culture, our job is to curate what notable critics say. I can easily envision us reaching a consensus a particular role isn't a MPDG in case where several critics characterize her as having traits not associated with MPDG, despite one critic calling her a MPDG. Our examples should reflect cases where we don't expect critics to disagree. Most often, I assume, one critic calls her a MPDG while other critics are silent on the matter, or describe her with similar qualities while not using the MPDG term explicitly. CapnZapp (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Examples in Other Media
Many have described Alaska from "Looking for Alaska" as an MPDG. A Google search for the two together turns up an unending list of blog posts on the topic, but I'm not sure what might be a reliable source. GCNovus (talk) 17:26, 02 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would certainly feel comfortable using her as an example in casual conversation, but I think here we should stick to a few iconic and easily-recognizable examples. If Green himself or a major reviewer (Kirkus, Booklist, something like that) has made the connection, it would probably merit a mention at the Looking for Alaska article, though. FiveColourMap (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought to look for Green's own thoughts on the subject. He discusses Alaska as an MPDG in |On the Destruction of Manic Pixie Dream Girls: "I actually think the MPDG criticism is more fairly leveled against a novel like, say, Looking for Alaska–in which the narrator, by nature of his circumstances, is never able to see the other as fully human." GCNovus (talk) 23:02, 03 November 2011 (UTC)

Cassie from "The Nightmare Stacks" by Charles Stross is described by the author as a "maniac pixie dream girl". She superficially appears to fit the description perfectly, but it's an act to advance her own goals (conquest of Earth and enslavement of mankind). Her species are the source of legends of elves and other fae folk, so she is also literally a pixie, in a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.186.18 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-American media
MPDG is purely an American (United States) classification of stereotypical/stock characters. However, movies of non-American origins may have characters that correspond to MPDG. If so, those inclusions should be made into a separate section "Non-American media".

I extracted the following, removed it from the article and placed it here because without attribution of any reference, I take it as original research by whomever who inserted it:
 * "However many characters from European art-house cinema do fit the criteria, including Paz Vega's character in Julio Medem's Sex and Lucia and Eva Green's character in Bertolucci's The Dreamers."
 * "The character known only as The Girl in Korea's wildly popular My Sassy Girl, Faye Wong's character in the Hong Kong film Chungking Express all fit the description."

I also further wish to modify its structure a little to make the sentence more acceptable:


 * "However many characters from European art-house cinema do fit the criteria, including Paz Vega's character in Julio Medem's Sex and Lucia and Eva Green's character in Bertolucci's The Dreamers."
 * "The character known only as The Girl in the Korean movie My Sassy Girl, as well as Faye Wong's character in the Hong Kong film Chungking Express, both fall into the description of MPDG."

Someone please work hard to find references to justify the inclusion of the above and insert it back into the article under the section name I proposed.

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what kind of references I would have to insert, but a classic example of a MPDG is Betty Blue in Betty Blue / 37°2 le matin.

I think the stereotype exists in literature also. Sabeth in Max Frisch's Home Faber comes to mind - she (and her lover, Faber) fit all the criteria. But we'd need somebody who knows more about literature to tell us if the cliché exists in literature as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.141.2 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll need reliable sources calling your examples "Manic Pixie Dream Girls". Without those sources, we have nothing to add. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a purely American stereotype. However, if critics of other countries doesn't use the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" label, there's nothing we can do. If you find a German or Japanese critic using the term to describe a foreign-language film (preferably in an English-language review), please feel free to add it. CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Chronological list
I think on this talk page it would be useful to compile a list of all the movies mentioned in this article (plus any others in the references or mentioned on this talk) and arrange them in chronological order.

Then, those who have trouble understanding this meme (like myself) could undergo a movie marathon, hopefully reflecting upon these characters and their roles, to understand it. Ranze (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Annie Hall
Diane Keaton's title character in "Annie Hall" doesn't fit the description of someone with no "inner life" or goals. Numerous scenes focus on her goal of singing and how she struggles with self-confidence in that regard, which has parallels to her uncertain approach to relationships. Her inner life is explored in discussions with her boyfriend (Woody Allen's character), her therapist, her discussion of her stage fright, her attachment to marijuana, etc. There's even a scene in which subtitles reveal her inner thoughts, which should disabuse anyone of the notion that the character lacks inner thoughts!

So to suggest that the movie presents her as having no inner life is misleading and inaccurate, which doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia. Yet the entry puts her in a list of "Manic Pixie Dream Girls in film." This list doesn't include any qualification saying that this is just what some people have said and it may be questionable or ill-founded. That one writer in AV Club once labeled Annie Hall an MPDG without explanation isn't sufficient to make the MPDG label a fact about that character. It's a fact about what was once said about that character by one person.

Later in the Wikipedia article, there is some criticism of labeling Annie Hall as an MPDG. I could see leaving in that criticism along with any counterpoints. But the current inclusion of her in a list of MPDGs just as inaccurate as if the entry on "Annie Hall" called it a drama rather than a comedy. Even though labeling the genre of a movie is often a tricky judgment call, that would be quickly changed because it's clearly an inaccurate way to describe this movie. And even if it can sometimes be a close question whether a character is an MPDG, it's so clearly inaccurate in the case of Annie Hall that it should not be left up as if it were an unequivocal statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaltcoh (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your opinion, Wikipedia articles are based on independent reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. List articles should be based on objective, sourced selection criteria.


 * The current inclusion criteria we are using are: the film must be blue-link notable (i.e., have its own article) and independent reliable sources must directly state the character is an MPDG.


 * If you would like to suggest different objective criteria, please do. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Roughly a third to half of the pre-2000 examples are from a single source (AV Club). This page feels like an opinion piece, which is mostly supported by a single podcast. Just because the AV club podcast came up with a bunch of subjective examples, then speculated wildly with every character remotely close to this trope, shouldn't mean it is encyclopedia worthy. They simply took a provocative idea, expanded on it in a speculative fashion, and now we are calling it fact just because we can link to it. Androsynth (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I count 5 out of 19. Closer to 1/4.


 * I'm not really sure if you are saying AV Club isn't a reliable source for the material it is cited for, the article needs different inclusion criteria or the topic isn't notable. Please clarify.

Preceding section was not signed. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

quality of article
The article quality was really bad, since it conflated one critic's opinion for facts. We should not say "N.N is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl", whether we can source a critic saying so or not.

What we can do, however, is point to notable instances where a critic considers a character a MPDR, and say so. That is, not say N.N a MPDR, but that critic so-and-so said she was.

Article has been comprehensively improved. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In general I don't have a problem with identifying the critic, but I don't think there is a blanket necessity that we do so as long as the source is reliable and properly cited. If we take this idea to it's logical extreme, every sentence or paragraph throughout Wikipedia would have to include a statement such as, "According to John Doe" or something similar. That becomes unwieldy and doesn't always improve the quality of the article. Each situation like this requires a sense of clarity of expression that must be determined on an individual basis. For example, if I see the statement, "Actress Jane Doe has been described as a MPDG", followed by a citation to Roger Ebert (or an equally reliable source), I can easily glance at the citation and know that it's a quality source. The text of the sentence doesn't have to tell me that Roger Ebert said it. How to word a sentence requires some degree of judgment about how obvious it is that the source is reliable, not a cookie cutter requirement to name the critic in the text of the article. Other articles with similar tropes, such as magical Negro, scream queen, and final girl, don't always name the critic for every example. We have to have a balance between clarity (the extreme of which would be naming every critic) and good writing style (which avoids the repetitive use of John Doe said, according to John Doe, in the opinion of John Doe, etc.). Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, you're (possibly) missing the point. We do not need to preface a statement such as "the sky is blue" with "So and so said so" because we're talking about verifiable facts. But this article isn't concerned about that. This is opinions. Which female roles have notably been considered to belong to this stock character type? Then it becomes critical to either establish consensus among critics "they all think she's a MPDG" or to name the critic that says so. For a subject such as genre (e.g. "is Gravity (2013 movie) science fiction?") the first opinion is readily available - most if not all reviews will mention or define a genre. And we do not need to call out individual critics. But very few roles are called Manic Pixie Dream Girls by a substantial number of critics - all our examples involve few critics at most. Then it is our job to separate "she IS a manic pixie" from "N.N. considered her to be a manic pixie. The rest of the critics said nothing, so we're including her here, based on N.N.s review". Hope that helps. (PS. The argument "but article X does it differently" is a weak argument. I won't comment on the Magical Negro article but will simply assume each case is actually well-established among multiple critics/film analysts, which is not the case here, since our trope is much much less established than theirs.) CapnZapp (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did misunderstand. But it is a rare case that there is a consensus among critics that Jane Doe is a MPDG. So that basically leaves the examples where one (maybe two) critics state that she is a MPDG. So in those cases we would have to state that critic X states that she is a MPDG. My point is that in some cases even if it's one critic, we don't necessarily have to name the critic. My example of Roger Ebert illustrates this. He is one critic, but Ebert was one of most respected critics in history. If he says something, it's worth noting. Do we need a consensus of critics in that case? I don't think so as long as we don't imply that there is a consensus of critics. So again if I read "Jane Doe has been viewed as a MPDG", followed by a citation to Ebert, there's no need to name Ebert. Now, if critic Imabadcritic states in the Podunk Film Reviews that Jane Doe is a MPDG, then yes we would need to identify the critic, or even better, not include anything from that source. Every case must be determined on an individual basis. Then if there's disagreement among editors, we use the consensus process. I may still be misunderstanding. My main goal is to make the article readable and well-written. I agree we don't need to suggest that someone is a MPDG as if we're speaking with Wikipedia's voice. It needs to be clear that a critic, not Wikipedia, has identified the person as MPDG, whether in the text or in a citation that's easy to see by hovering the mouse pointer over the citation. I realize that we can't use similar articles as a blueprint for how to do this article, but I think we can get an idea of how articles handle these situations. List articles, such as List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction are easier to manage. You determine if one source is reliable, and if it is, you can add the item. Some articles are a combination of text and list, such as Final girl. The critics are generally named in the text, and a list table summarizes. All articles like this attract people who want to add their own idea of the trope, but don't bother to find a source to support it. It's a never-ending process to keep the garbage out. Sundayclose (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you feel the article is improved by, for example, using Roger Ebert as a source without mentioning him, that's certainly possible. My point isn't to argue there are rules that can't be broken, but instead that unless we have a good reason, why not include the critic? If we include too few critics, and our reader gets the impression we're talking about facts instead of opinions ("X is a MPDG"), then we have failed, and article quality is lacking. I would encourage you to rewrite the Ebert review paragraph (Portman in Garden State), except I see that we actually quote him, in which case we should definitely keep his name. The three paragraphs without quotes are the first, which I consider perfectly fine (calling back AV Club which is where the trope namer worked), the fourth (and BCDWire is definitely not a top-tier review site that merits taking Loftus' word for granted), and the last one (which I added just recently, partly to show how the term remains in use even for recent movies). Of these I would say the bullet point for Vanilla Sky would be my first pick for a paragraph that could be improved in a way that omits the reviewer, if you can find a more established reviewer, or perhaps more reviewers agreeing she is a MPDG. Have a nice day. CapnZapp (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't really see any need to change the Ebert section. I was just using that as a hypothetical example. I think your points are good and well stated. As I said, my only goal moving forward is to have a professional writing style with individual judgment used as to whether a critic must be named. By the way, it's interesting that Wikipedia seems to be the only encyclopedia in which we would be having this discussion. From what I can see, although there are Google hits for MPDG, no other encyclopedia discusses it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)