Talk:Rememory

chastized for deleting repetitive information
please allow the deletion of multiple repetitions in this article. title section, cast section and infobox repeat the same information, namely, listing the main cast of the film.

please discuss with AffeL the appropriate use of their moderator privileges.

the movie is not a drama or scifi film, it is a murder mystery.

User Affel please discuss your objection to my edits here instead of sending threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.67.211 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that says the movie is a murder mystery, then go right ahead and their are no repetitions in this article. The lead is suppose to be a summary of the whole article. - AffeL (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I received yet another message, a duplicate of the first from the same person for adding a cleanup tag to the article with no other changes. I have upgraded this to an NPOV dispute because they removed the cleanup tag. because NPOV tags require moderators to review the article for its appropriateness and cannot be removed without this, I have used it. I have not vandalised the article yet a user insists on sending me messages and reverting changes claiming i have vandalised it. I suspect guerilla marketting may be involved as my reverted changes may hurt the advertising potential of the articles structure.

there are a number of problems with the article. first, the head of the article does not describe the movie. it is standard for wikipedia articles to at least introduce the topic of the movie or a very brief overview of the movie. the list of main actors without any additional information being listed three times makes the article too verbose. the category is incorrect.

the user in favour of the current state of the article requested sources regarding why it is not science fiction and should be classified as a murder mystery. I would point to professional reviews, these are all listed on rotten tomatoes. In particular i would point to the professional reviews from the holywood reporter, Nerdist and variety. while it is true that the studio marketing has attempted to market the movie under the classification of science fiction, many reviewers have criticised this as a McGuffin ie. the characters could have simply been reading collections of his letters and cut to a flashback type scene without the need for a fantastic device. they also state that the science of the fantastic device is not covered or discussed. Nor is its implications for society. Science fiction requires an exploration of discourse relating mans relationship with technology or in the case of hard science fiction, speculative technologies based on real world research and how new discoveries and inventions may be possible based on such new real world discoveries and the various social, technological, political or otherwise implications of such technology. For example, Frankenstein is science fiction because it involves galvanocoloidalism, a recently popularised discovery at the time. Jules Verne proposed a giant canon being used to reach space or a deep sea submarine or how recent industrial developments might allow a man to circumnavigate the world in 80 days. here the use of science fiction is a clear misnomer when applied to rememory. https://www.theyoungfolks.com/film/sundance-2017-review-rememory/96016 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/rememory-969423 http://variety.com/2017/film/reviews/rememory-review-1201971810/ http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/rememory-2017-film-review-by-amber-wilkinson http://nerdist.com/peter-dinklage-deserves-better-than-rememory-sundance-review/ http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/01/25/sundance-review-rememory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.67.211 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

An unstated but interesting aspect of this film. Worth noting?
This is the most politically correct movie I’ve seen to date, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory manner in this instance. I’m not a huge movie buff, so perhaps there are others like this. What I mean is that it stars Peter Dinklage who is a dwarf. Yet, not once (at least that I recall from having recently seen the movie) was this mentioned or even does any other character do a “double-take” upon first encountering him, not even a slight facial reaction. The lead character being a dwarf seems totally irrelevant (which is perhaps the point of ignoring it) to the plot and there is absolutely no reason that I can discern why the character has to be a dwarf (or why he can’t be!). I have to believe that this was a conscious decision by the scriptwriter and director: “He’s just a guy, like any other.”  One might praise this, certainly, but throughout the film this unspoken consideration seems the metaphorical elephant in the room.

Again, I am absolutely not castigating this philosophy even if somewhat unrealistic. I am mentioning it because perhaps something can be mentioned in the article concerning this interesting aspect of the film. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)