Talk:Nope (film)/Archive 1

Categories
We don't know what type of alien activity we will see in this film, so I propose the categories "Films about alien abduction/invasion" be removed for the time being, until we learn more about the film's plot. 2A00:23C7:ED18:A301:201D:E94F:F057:AEB2 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Using proper pronoun for a character
In the first paragraph under the “Plot” section, a character named Gordy -a male chimpanzee- is referred to with inconsistent pronouns. He is referred to as “he,” and is later referred to as “it” in the last sentence of the paragraph. Since he has already been introduced with a name and a “he” pronoun, the “it” pronoun needs to be corrected to “he.” 144.230.82.251 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMRATINGS
WP:FILMRATINGS are not normally included. What's more the text makes it clear how entirely unsurprising it is that this Jordan Peele film is R-Rated. The notes about the MPA rating should probably be removed. If editors were aware of the guidelines and deliberately trying to claim something about the rating is especially noteworthy and that an exception should be made in this case then they must do more to clearly explain why they think it is appropriate. A talk page discussion should not be be necessary to figure this out, it should really already be clear to readers that something about the rating was exceptional or it shouldn't be in the article. -- 109.78.196.241 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nope (film)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nope (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM": From BlacKkKlansman:  From Candyman (2021 film):  From Once Upon a Time in Hollywood:  From Get Out:  From The Wizard of Oz (1939 film):  From Universal Pictures:  From Us (2019 film):  From Thor: Love and Thunder: </li> <li>From Close Encounters of the Third Kind: </li> <li>From DC League of Super-Pets: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Title styling?
I see that the title is styled NOPE (all caps) on the poster, in ads, and in the film itself. Are we to take it that only the first letter of the "official" (registered?) title is capitalized, though? Just wondering how the article's creator determined that. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2022
Gordy doesn't kill Jupe's female cast mate, she is at the abduction show on Jupiter's Claim. Her electronic wheelchair is on the roof. Gordy is shot before Jupe can fist bump him. 104.246.197.69 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Having just seen the film, I can verify that what 104… wrote is true. In the flashback, Gordy maims the TV show cast member; in the present-day abduction sequence, you see she is disfigured. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022
change the title from “Nope” to “NOPE” as Universal in press has began to distinctly stylize the name that way 2603:6081:5340:F2A2:C486:2B3C:BFAE:1FB9 (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. please also provide reliable sources that press in general refers to the film as "NOPE" instead of "Nope", and keep in mind the guideline for all-caps in articles. &#128156;  melecie   talk  - 10:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The stylization in all caps appears to be a font choice, although an inconsistent one. As of now, on Universal's page for Nope, they primarily use Title Case "Nope" over ALL CAPS "NOPE," although the embedded YouTube trailer video there does use "NOPE." ColinATL (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't see this (title was too vague). As I mentioned in my redundant topic below, the title is styled all-caps not just on the poster and in its ads (including trailers), but in the film itself—implying it was the director's choice, not just publicists', as you theorize. The decision to use "title case" (first cap only) on the film's webpage may have just been the copywriter's lack of attention and/or interest. (A personal aversion to all-caps may have caused them to subvert it, too; I've known people who'd do that—haven't you?) Personally, the film's own representation is enough for me. Why would the filmmaker choose an all-caps font if they didn't want the title to look like that? Perhaps you could track down the copyright documentation—but a functionary undoubtedly filled that out too. (There's no telling how important they considered the case, and it probably makes no difference in that context.) Again, I'd go by the film itself: all-caps. :?). – AndyFielding (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Pronouns
The horses should be referred to by him/her as they are in the film. The use of ‘it’ is objectifying and increasingly out of fashion even in scientific and academic settings, not to mention going against the themes of respecting other beings found in the film. 2603:7000:A303:2ED2:1D44:6E8E:C98A:EAFB (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Chief Crazy Horse approves this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:1016:6:D956:FDBA:3489:5AA7:F78 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Good luck determining their genders from their unisex names, though… Close inspection of particular film frames will probably be necessary (LOL). – AndyFielding (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion References
Neither Jordan Peele nor the monster designer John Dabiri are on record as citing the series or Angel designs as direct inspiration at this time. Every linked source regarding this is speculative writing by third parties. I think this should be removed as it is in multiple portions of this entry. CrustyCrostini (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's essentially fanwank.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article states "identifying the Angels of Neon Genesis Evangelion as the principle inspiration for the film's premise and monster in the film's production notes, impressed by the "hyper minimalism" and "biomechanical design flair" of Sahaquiel, the 10th Angel" but the source is a load of speculative clickbait nonsense with no direct quotes from Peele or any sources at all. 2404:2D00:5000:701:4DE2:50FB:2931:3FEE (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The only one where I really see a resemblance is Gaghiel—which, from some angles, looks somewhat like this film's beast in its expanded form. Seen from the front, though, Gaghiel's actually more like a flying shark with a great toothy maw, bearing little resemblance to the film monster. This seems like fishing to me. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Critique
"Brody interpreted the choice to have the space creatures target a Black-owned horse farm as "a sardonic vision of the universality of racism"." Does Wikipedia have any standards for critics ramblings? This is just utterly bizarre bias confirmation tbh. "Peele made the movie, everything must be about racism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Richard Brody of The New Yorker, is a known critic from a mainstream source. Wikipedia does have some standards, and as a reliable source he meets the requirements. If you want to discuss this further then you could argue that it was WP:UNDUE of Wikipedia editors to highlight this one critic, and this one small part of his review to emphasis the issue of racism. For something to be highlighted in the themes section you might be able to argue that it should be supported by more than a brief mention by one critic in one article and that there should be more sources to support the point. (I would expect there are more sources that could and should be added.) You could do that, I'm not going to argue it for you though. -- 109.77.206.76 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary
The plot summary is unnecessarily long and poorly worded. Additionally, the alien’s final form does not look like a biblically accurate angel at all. That part needs to be taken out. 75.182.185.45 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In addition, Angel does not accidentally get wrapped in the tarp and barbed wire. He does this completely on purpose in order to protect himself. 38.140.6.218 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The plot summary has since been reduced to an acceptable word count per WP:FILMPLOT (i.e. between 400 and 700 words; at the time of my writing this, the word count is 696 words). The general consensus seems to favour referring to the alien's final form as being reminiscent of a "biblically accurate angel", especially since there are multiple cited sources that refer to it as such. And as for Angel being wrapped in tarp and barbed wire, I've removed the word "accidentally". — Matthew  - (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The general consensus seems to favour referring to the alien's final form as being reminiscent of a "biblically accurate angel", especially since there are multiple cited sources that refer to it as such.
 * The actual reference listed definitively states that it is NOT a Biblically accurate depiction of an angel.
 * Furthermore, if you follow the link for Biblical angel the only picture shown does not resemble anything like the creature in the film.
 * Is there any possible way that you could quote any of the sources for the "general consensus" that it is a Biblically accurate angel aside from the reference listed that disagrees with that consensus, or a link to another Wikipedia page that also disagrees with that premise?
 * The reference states it is not a Biblically accurate depiction of an angel, but rather "Instead, its ultimate form resembles a jellyfish, squid, or octopus." 2603:90C8:0:C28B:210C:F9A2:459C:28F7 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Themes and interpretations -- Jason Faulkner section
This section is one long barely intelligible run on sentence. 71.105.54.60 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Muybridge pictures
The animation of Eadweard Muybridge's pictures of galloping horse Annie G. (published as plate 626 in Muybridge's Animal Locomotion in 1887) is used in the movie as illustration of "the very first assembly of photographs to create a motion picture" and the rider is said to be the great (great) grandfather of the Haywoods.

Unfortunately, this chronophotographic sequence is not really "the first assembly of photographs to create a motion picture" and not even Muybridge's first. Information about this concept is not relevant enough for the article, but to set things straight, I'll provide a short explanation here.

Muybridge had already been publishing chronophotographic picture sequences since 1878 –nine years before the Annie G series were published– (see The Horse in Motion). The names of riders and drivers are printed on those cabinet cards: (Charles) Marvin and G.(Gilbert L.) Domm. Their skin colour isn't clear in the original pictures; at this stage Muybridge only managed to record them as silhouettes (Stanford did employ black coachman James Vickers, featured in an 1872 still photograph by Muybridge, but Marvin and Domm were probably not black; the extant detailed press articles of the time would probably have pointed this out). The 1878 series were often viewed in motion in zoetropes soon after publication, and a little while later they were traced anamorphically in paint on glass discs, for projection with Muybridge's zoopraxiscope as part of his lectures on locomotion (starting in 1880). The lectures thus seem to have included the first projected motion pictures based on actual (photographic) recordings of motion (basically a form of rotoscoping). Stroboscopic animation already existed since 1833, projected stroboscopic animation at least since 1847, and stop motion/pixilation (animated posed photographs) since circa 1851/1852, see: History of film technology.

The black rider of Annie G., recorded at a Philadelphia race track in 1885 (in much clearer quality than the 1878 pictures), has not yet been identified. Unfortunately, the pages with notes for these recordings are missing from Muybridge's notebook kept at the George Eastman House library (https://fdiv.net/2015/01/02/who-were-jockeys-muybridges-photographs). Joortje1 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think some of this media history is valuable to include, probably in #Themes and interpretations, as it is important to the theme of exploitation and underrecognition of black labor in Hollywood. It's probably useful to mention that this is the first really photographic sequence, rather than something like a silhouette, or however it is technically best to phrase it. Pharos (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)