Talk:Shutter Island (film)/Archive 2

In Treatment (synopsis)
Just one person guilty for murder? Mirrowing the father is the cause of all deeds.Catholic beliefe bgrds this message. Is there any message ? is there only one guilty? Real Justice as a possible frame, may lead in another direction. b(h)uddy stuff!--88.77.134.56 (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The film settled in the fifteeth USA deals with criminality and pschychy phanonemens.The causes of the murder seem to be found lately and the cruel solution in this time means lobotomy.


 * Thou shalt not wiki while drunk? Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  09:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted changes.
I performed several changes that I believe were for the good of the article, and they removed for supposedly being plot bloat and having bad grammar. My edits certainly didn't take the plot over the limit specified by MOSFILM, so I'd like to know what's the grounds for saying it was plot bloat. Then, I'd like to know what were the grammar and punctuation mistakes. Each of my changes was made for a reason, and I find it REALLY annoying when people just reverting a whole bunch of changes when they have a problem with any of them, instead of trying to work from them to improve the article. I leave the diff here. --uKER (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi UKER. I'll try to explain some of my specific issues and hopefully others will weigh in as well.  Let me know if you need me to clarify anything.   In general, I saw a lot of things that explained something that was already stated and added length in the process.  If it had helped clarify something ambiguous the length wouldn't be an issue.  I started to try and rephrase the things I felt strongest about but found too many problems, from my perspective, thus my decision to revert to the previous plot.


 * Going point by point through the changes that I took issue with (should be mostly in order through the diff):


 * 1st Paragraph sentences about Rachel: "supposedly" in connection to her disappearance I felt was an unnecessary word addition and could be taken as interpretative as it seems to tie into the later part of the film where Teddy believes he has been drugged and that the Rachel plot was a lure to draw him to the island.


 * "and that despite having spent several years in the institution, she believed she was at home and that her children are still alive. " Is significantly longer than the previous sentence and says the same thing.


 * 2nd paragraph: I wasn't sure why you removed the sentence about the cliffs but don't have a major problem with it. I liked that addition because it helps the reader realize how extensive the search was but could see how others may feel it's an extraneous detail.
 * "hospital's personnel's files" typo/punctuation problem on "personnel's"
 * "who had died in a fire two years before" Unnecessary change of verb tense leading to unneeded length.
 * "During this dream" and "in which she died" Addition of specific explanation that isn't needed, given the directly preceding sentence.


 * 3rd paragraph: The distraction for Chuck I felt was an unneeded detail in terms of a summary. I don't feel terribly strongly about this one, however.
 * Perhaps I'm remembering wrong but I don't recall Teddy saying he was specifically assigned to investigate the hospital after Andrew's disappearance. Given the end of the film, this is perhaps a moot point, but while watching I got the impression that he took it upon himself.  My point is that it wasn't specified either way so I felt it best to simply leave it at the fact that he investigated without a why.
 * The sentence about Noyce and nazis seemed awkward to me. Part of the problem here, for me, was the introduction of Noyce by name.  At this point in the plot, he's just a guy that Teddy talked to in the past and his name is not really critical.  But if he is brought in by name this early, should the actor parenthetical be brought up as well (honest question, I'm really not sure) even though we don't see the character for a while yet?


 * 4th paragraph (in your version): "At a given point, and without any anticipation, Teddy is told Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer) had appeared some time ago, that she is just fine, and she is presented with her. "  Last few words of the sentence have obvious grammar issues. However, I really liked the idea of what I think you were trying to convey in terms of how that moment played out in the movie.  I felt the execution awkward and I stared and stared at it trying to figure out how to rephrase.  I realized that ultimately quotes from WP:PLOTSUMNOT were what was bugging me.  "The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience — it's to explain the story."  "Do not attempt to recreate the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary."
 * The rest of that paragraph I felt was unneeded detail and ultimately said the same thing that was there before; she was unresponsive to Teddy's questioning.
 * I can see a case for mentioning Teddy's hallucinations and headaches (ties into his beliefs about the hospital after he talks with Dr. Solando later) but as written in the diff they came off like extra details.


 * 5th Paragraph (your version): I don't think thee introductory sentence you added is really necessary but it's no big deal either way.


 * 6th Paragraph: "Teddy then makes it to the lighthouse but find nothing unusual, contrarily to what Noyce and Solando had made him anticipate. " Sentence isn't really needed and has minor grammar problems.
 * "and then went on to create a fantasy" Says the same thing as other version but with more words.
 * "This fantasy implied him adopting his new identity as Edward Daniels, an agent investigating the disappearance of Rachel Solando, being these names anagrams of "Andrew Laeddis" and "Dolores Chanal", his name and his wife's." Implied; not sure what you mean by that in this context.  The anagram stuff I felt was unneeded detail; to me the fact that he invented the Rachel Solando character was sufficient.
 * "Cawley explains that during his time in the clinic, Andrew had went through several cycles of beginning his investigation, only to find out the reality about his crime, after which the cycle restarted, so Sheehan and Cawley decided to try a roleplay experiment, in which they contributed to enact Andrew's fantasy, in an attempt to bring him back to reality before a lobotomy is deemed as the only viable remedy. " Again, I see what you were trying to show with this but the execution was wordy and had some mild grammar issues.


 * I think I got my major points (I know I including some of the things I didn't really mind that much). And again, please do let me know if there's something I'm not being clear enough on.   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to make that list. Now, here are justifications for my edits and the problems I have with the current text:
 * Presentation of Teddy's full name, needed for later presenting the anagrams without needing to explicitly say Teddy was actually called Edward (see later point on the anagrams' relevance).
 * Designation of Emily Mortimer as the actress for Rachel Solando when she is mentioned as the target of Teddy's investigation. At that point Rachel solando had not been presented on-screen, and during the course of the movie two different actresses portray her. Furthermore, the actress mentioned there as portraying Rachel turns out to be an impostor and not actually Rachel, so that designation I'd say is definitely wrong. IMHO each of the actresses' names should be given when Teddy is presented with the impostor and when he meets the "real" Rachel in the cave.
 * The sentence about the cliffs not possibly allowing her to reach the caves I'd say is totally pointless, lacking any cohesion with the rest of the text, and also meaningless since Teddy later actually meets Rachel in the caves (albeit she is a fictional one). If you feel necessary to reflect the intensity of Rachel's search, perhaps a sentence could be added that does that explicitly.
 * Since the film follows Teddy's mind's fabrications, the diversion for Chuck when the patient passes the note is relevant in presenting Teddy's subconscious suspicions towards Chuck.
 * The sentence "She tells him (...) who started the fire." actually required me reading it a couple of times before I knew what it was about, but maybe it's just me. In any case, I'd say scatimation on words doesn't outweigh the improvement in clarity.
 * Presentation of Teddy's wife, Dolores' last name. Same as with Teddy, makes way for the presentation of the anagrams.
 * George Noyce's name is in fact mentioned during Teddy's story about meeting him. No reason to mention it only later when they meet. Your question about designating the actors despite the character not actually appearing, I think is answered by the problem that arose with Rachel Solando. My take is actors should be presented only when they come on screen. Imagine films where the same character is played by several different people (this comes to mind). About Teddy investigating the institution, he says "I started making some checking on Ashcliffe.", so you're right on him not explicitly saying he had been asigned to do so.
 * Blatant omission of the scene where Teddy meets the impostor Rachel Solando. You're right on me making a typo there. I actually meant "he is presented with her" and not "she". About me trying to convey emotion, that was not the point. The point was to reflect the glaring awkwardness of the scene, which ties in to Teddy's suspicions of things going on behind the scenes.
 * Blatant omission of Teddy's increasingly disturbed state (photosensitivity, headaches, sweating, daydreaming, etc).
 * Blatant omission of the normality of the lighthouse, contrary to the house of tortures Teddy was expecting to find there.
 * The anagrams I think are the key point in clearing up any possible doubt one could have as to whether Teddy was insane or not, by revealing that the character's names were purposefully chosen (I actually have used that argument to settle debates with people that say Teddy wasn't insane and the hospital plotted to make him seem so). That said, my proposed text presented a more cohesive presentation of the anagrams.
 * No mention of the cycles in Teddy's evolution during his stay in the institution, and the fact that the fully-enacted roleplay thing was tried as a last resort. Somewhat tied to following point.
 * Blatant omission of Teddy knowing beforehand that the failure of his treatment would inevitably lead to a lobotomy, without which it is left unclarified that Teddy was actually wishing for it.
 * FWIW, whenever I find an edit that I am not completely happy with, especially when it comes from a non-anonymous editor, I always try not to revert it altogether without actually giving it a careful read trying to see what they were trying to do, and if anything, modify what I find wrong with their text, trying to keep the improvements they intended. Of course it's not a rule, but it makes things go much more smoothly and I find that it helps the article too. --uKER (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey uKER, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Real life reared it's ugly head.  Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind your edits; I have a much clearer picture in my head now.  In hindsight, there's some bits in there that were clear to me that, now that you point it out, I can see how it was unclear to others.  There's a few points a I disagree with you on but nothing that I feel really strongly about, myself.  Since no one else is chiming in, want to go ahead and revert back to the version you had made and we'll just hash out any rephrasing we need work on?  Also, I want to apologize.  The day I originally reverted I wasn't really paying attention to who the edits came from (I'm familiar enough with your work that I would have just gone and bugged you directly if I had).    It's a bad habit I picked up elsewhere that helps avoid problems on another wiki I poke around on; read the edits not who they're from.  I totally should have been paying more attention to the "who" in this case.   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK with me. I'll see to do it incorporating any changes that have been introduced so far and taking into account the suggestions you made. --

uKER (talk)


 * Well, here's the new diff, between my previous edit and the new one. You were right on the grammar errors. Seems like I wrote it while sleep deprived because some of them were quite atrocious. Here's some comments about what I changed. Check it out and of course, feel free to improve at will.
 * Rachel "said to have vanished" reflects the uncertainty of the affirmation that she actually did, which Teddy suspects right from the start.
 * Not sure about the relevance of Rachel still thinking her children are still alive and she is still at home.
 * "had died in a fire" Although tecnically the plot is written in present tense, it talks about facts in the past, and as a fact that had already happened before the other events being described, I'd say the tense is right.
 * Gave context for Ward C.
 * --uKER (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reading now; looks good so far. I think the sentence about Rachel thinking her kids were still alive originated with me, although now I can't recall why I felt the need to be so specific about it.  My best guess is that I was trying to explain how severely delusion she supposedly was, as this gave a sense of urgency to the investigation.  But yeah, kind of irrelevant, really.  My beef with "had died" in a fire was that it went to past imperfect tense (or whatever it's called when you add the had in front of the modified verb).  I thought just past tense should be fine (in which case just "had" would need to be pulled).  But I went to public school in California so what do I know? ;)   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to come up with a formal justification for the tense in the mention of her death, but written in simple past it just strikes me as if the sentence had suddenly started talking about a real person and not a character in the film. It's probably just me though. Perhaps we should get some third party's input. --uKER (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that and see what you mean. The first time I read it, the sentence seemed really awkward but I find I don't notice it so much anymore.  Go figure.  I'm guessing it's probably clear enough either way and we're both over thinking it.  Heh.  Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  01:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers in the cast list
I think maybe we should remove the 'secondary'/'actual' character names from the cast list.

I know some people go to wikipedia for general information on a film before they see it, but will skim or skip the plot section, where spoilers are traditionally placed.

Having them right there on the cast/characters list is a bit too blatant of a place to put those such major spoilers.

Even the wiki page for Usual Suspect ***spoiler if your one of the 3 people on the planet who havent seen Usual Suspects*** doesn't put Keyser Soze next to Kevin Spacey's name.

I think it's best to just stick with the original cast and character lists as printed by IMDB and on press releases.

Totallyprocrastinating (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to leave it that way in spite of WP:SPOILER just because it looks cleaner (I really hated how the slashes looked). The only problem I see is that people will likely wonder why there are two Rachel Solandos listed, which is in and of itself a spoiler.  So it seems like the change really doesn't help anything but the visual aspect of the page unless we remove Clarkson from the list, which I think is a bad plan just because she's a well known actress.  I am going to re-add the Dr. back to her listing so that it doesn't look like a mistake.  If someone else wants to revert the cast back to the slash version 1) I won't edit war over it, I don't really care either way and 2) find a better looking method than the slashes pretty please?   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  08:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, that's fine. For Patricia Clarkson's role I noticed that IMDB had her and Emily Mortimer credited as "Rachel 2" and "Rachel 1" respectively, while the film's official site listed them both as "Rachel Solando", which is what I followed when I changed that section.


 * While Patrica's credit as "Dr. Rachel Solando" is a still a spoiler, it's minor compared to having "Teddy Daniels/Andrew Laeddis" or "faux Laeddis" printed right there.

Totallyprocrastinating (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to see sensible editors working on this article. Too many trolls abusing guidelines like WP:SPOILER as an excuse to be griefers instead of following the spirit of the guidelines which is to make sure we have things like a full plot summary including ending. And since you've done a good job there too I could even read the first few paragraphs of the Plot summary without spoiling the ending. Here's hoping the article will stay in good shape. -- Horkana (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes in language
Hello. I do not understand this part of the plot: ...he finds Noyce, who says that the whole situation is a game for Teddy's benefit and that Noyce is afraid of being taken to the lighthouse

It could be divided into:
 * ''...he finds Noyce, who says
 * a) that the whole situation is a game for Teddy's benefit
 * b) that Noyce is afraid of being taken to the lighthouse

... so the situation number two would be exactly this: ...he finds Noyce, who says that Noyce is afraid of being taken to the lighthouse

Is really Noyce speaking there about himself? This reproduction really sounds so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.65.4 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

More cast list issues
I have a few questions/issues and a suggestion about the Cast list:
 * Re the two "Rachels" (see Spoilers in the cast list above), I just watched the movie on DVD and noticed the closing credits list them as "Rachel 1" followed by "Rachel 2" consistent with the IMDB. Perhaps this would be least spoiling, since movies often cover several stages in a character's life, requiring two or more actors to portray the same one.
 * Style question: Does the MOS dictate always using characters' complete names? In this case (a plot combining characters' fantasy with reality) it contributes to the spoiler problem. There is also a problem with Delores' name; she could never have actually been Delores Chanal Daniels, but rather Delores Chanal Laeddis. It might be best to just list her as "Delores", or at least "Delores Chanal".
 * Do you see the generic problem here? Perhaps a "one-size-fits-all" style standard doesn't really exist; a cast list is intended primarily to match actors with characters; if we get too specific it reveals relationships between characters, and the difference between reality and fantasy (as defined in-universe).


 * Order question: is the intent to present the actors in order of appearance? If so, I seem to remember the fake Rachel being introduced after Leonardo meets Max Von Sydow's character; also the deputy warden is out of order since he appears early.
 * Or, is the intent to be in order of plot importance? Even then, I believe von Sydow should be moved up and the fake Rachel moved down.

JustinTime55 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, when there's a debate about how to list the cast I tend to copy the official credits verbatim. For example, in The Uninvited (2009 film), none of the characters last names are given in the credits (though they are stated in the movie itself).  Yet, there are numerous official sources listing two different last names for the main family.  So to avoid the inevitable edit war, at one point I just killed all the last names and matched the closing credits and official website.  So I think in this case the Rachel 1 and 2 idea would be great.  My inclination is to go with this on the issue with Delores as well. I thought she was listed in the credits as Delores Chanal but I haven't seen this since it opened so I could be off.


 * I think the intent was to go with order of plot importance (not sure as I didn't do cast on this one) but I'm not positive. The few times I've done cast editing where the order came into play I was able to just use the credits.  I can't remember how they were listed in this one (appearance, importance, etc.) so I'm not positive.  Great questions.   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray Vs Blu-ray Disc
While technically correct, I find repeatedly calling it "Blu-ray Disc" is pointlessly cumbersome, and it's not what we've been doing in every single film article to date. Note I haven't been involved in the ongoing edit war on the matter. --uKER (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion: Blu-ray Disc could be used in the first instance and then BD or non-hyperlinked BD for every additonal mention. This way, both of the official forms would be used, and it would be less cumbersome. Personally, I think only BD / BD should be used, analogous to "CD" and "DVD". It shouldn't matter if some people don't get it at first; after all, that's what Wikipedia is for: to learn something, and an encyclopedia isn't about what's popular but what's right. But since there's probably huge opposition to that (unwarranted, in my opinion), the above could serve as a compromise. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I insist that while perhaps more technically correct, calling it BD is an impractical technicism, and goes against common sense and established usage here on Wikipedia. I'll ask on WP:MOSFILM for other people's opinions and let you know what comes out of it. --uKER (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the discussion I've just started. --uKER (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

oomska?
Who is oomska? Referenced as a critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.52.169 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed as spam. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A semi-reliable source – maybe, but definitely not spam. Reinstated with a tag. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was spam. Links to this site have been added (and re-added) to several articles from the IP range 155.56.68.x. The source is not in any way "semi-reliable". It clearly fails WP:V as a recently founded WordPress blog with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Furthermore, any opinion expressed in a source like this is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oomska is not spam, 'Prolog', any more than you, sir, are spam! Why are there so many busy-body nerds on wikipedia, continually and relentlessly imposing 'rules' on worthwhile contributors' content? As I have just posted above, oomska is not a 'blog', and the Wizard of Oz reference is both accurate and pertinent. As to whether such sites are capable of producing content "notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia", can I point out to you that Wikipedia is *not* an encyclopedia; rather, it is an *online encyclopedia*. Don't get above yourself!

Oh, and 'Prolog', one more point: that there is a reference to 'Wizard of Oz' in 'Shutter Island' is not an 'opinion', it is either right or wrong, either the reference is there or it is not. An 'opinion' would be, say, if the article suggested that the whole film was intended as an homage to 'Wizard of Oz'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 October 2010


 * An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, it doesn't matter if it's online, on paper, on a floppy disk, … Also references are, unless verified by the creator, often interpretation of the viewer, and are frequently unintentionally and random rather than actually intended, people see hidden meanings that aren't actually there all the time.
 * Also the about page says "Some movie, tv, and related words from a guy with more dvds than time to watch them." clearly this is just some non-notable blogger.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to oomska.com, that is the wrong 'oomska'. Once again, I question the right, of people who make such mistakes, to judge the 'reliability' of others.

Do you really believe that there is no distinction between wikipedia and, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia aspires to be like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Its avoidance of using recently created blogs as sources is one small step in that direction.Cop 663 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * clearly not a "reliable source" with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy nor viewpoint of a "widely recognized expert in the field." Just some guy. Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And regardless of how much we are like EB, we are our own site with our own rules for inclusion of information in articles. The two relevant ones in question that the IP should review are the guidelines on reliable sources and external links.  Oomska does not appear to meet either standard.  While we may not be EB, we're also not a free-for-all forum that allows anything that any editor thinks is valuable.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How is oomska "just some guy"? Clearly there are a number of writers represented on that site. In what way are you, 'Active Banana', more than "just some guy"? Where on Oomska doe sit call itself a blog? Wikipedia may aspire to be Encyclopedia Britannica, but then I may aspire to be Martin Scorsese.

Cannot get why a site must have a "reputation" for fact checking, in this instance, when the 'fact' in question is easily confirmed, by watching the film, which I personally have done. Have you? No. You rule-worshipping wiki nerds don't know anything about the subjects being covered, you spend your time learning the rules and then nit-picking through other people's contributions. Man, get a life!

Ok, I think I'm gonna give up on this - how can "just one guy" hope to beat an army of pendants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not continue to add that information and link. 3 different editors have now told you that is neither a reliable source nor an external link.  If you do not agree, you either need to continue discussing here, or you need to take the issue to a notice board like the reliable sources noticeboard.  However, you may not simply try to "have your way" by pushing the info into the article repeatedly.  Doing so is called "edit warring", and is not allowed (see WP:Edit warring for more details).  Your IP address is changing, so I don't know exactly how we will resolve the issue if you continue to add against consensus, but disruptive editing is not allowed.  If you don't like the fact that Wikipedia makes editors follow rules, then I recommend you either try to change the rules (and, just to save you time, WP:RS is not going to change the way you want it to) or you need to find a different site to edit on.  Wikipedia is the place anyone can edit, but editors must abide by policies and guidelines.  Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This individual, using at least three IPs, has been adding the same material to this and the Annie Hall article for at least a month; he's ignored a dozen or so requests to stop. So I've blocked the 155.56.68.216 account. If he resumes the same editing with the 155.56.68.215 or 86.5.25.15 IPs then I'll block those too as needed. If that proves to be insufficient, we can add oomska.com to the spam blacklist; I dislike semiprotecting an article for the sake of one individual who isn't interested in productive contribution. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Victory to the nerds!

"...we can add oomska.com to the spam blacklist..."

You really are a bunch of plonkers, you can't even get the name of the website right: it's oomska.co.uk, not oomska.com. Good luck getting a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.25.15 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you are taking the wrong approach here. Trust me, no one here hates Wikipedancy more than I do, but we do have to face certain facts. Here's a few pointers:
 * You "attack" articles from different IPs instead of creating a username, and when confronted never address the issue. This can be seen around here as WP:Vandalism, WP:Trolling or both. You have one of two choices: agree or keep vandalizing/trolling. If you choose the latter, you're on your own.
 * You repeatedly ignore crucial questions addressed to you by multiple editors, specifically about core policies. If you're pointed to a policy over and over again, might as well at least try and read it, rather than bashing your head against the wall. It's supposed to be a conversation, not who can "outscream" who. A fair amount of veteran editors use similar tactics when they have an agenda, and they indeed get away with it because they always manage to get WP:Consensus, fake as it may be – but it still doesn't justify your attack.
 * You offend, rather than discussing, and such name calling and remarks are considered WP:Personal attacks. Blatant lack of WP:Civility is by no means welcome here or anywhere for that matter.
 * So, your problem in a nutshell:
 * You have created a website along with some friends. The website quality is not an issue here, not a single bit. It's probably great, the reviews may be very profound and the writing level may exceed some well known magazines. The problem, though, is on a whole different layer: allowing your site to be used as a source is akin to opening a can of worms. Suppose oomska.co.uk has been agreed upon as a reliable source. Shortly afterwards, 234673 others will do the same thing you've done, but their websites suck. Big time. Now there's an endless discussion thread around "why is his blog good and mine isn't?" or "is it because I'm black/Jewish/have ADD?" or any other unresolvable red herrings. Got it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dachau with Snow
The article incorrectly states that the "winterly" setting of the Dachau scenes is inaccurate. Snow was on the ground in spite of it being late spring as you can see in the pictures here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/dachau22.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.234.140 (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you find a source that directly contradicts the claims of inaccuracy in the movie? If not, this is unfortunately WP:SYNTH. –CWenger ( ^  •  @  ) 04:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre and psychiatry
I removed the long final paragraph in the genre section that discussed a so-called "controversy" regarding psychiatry. The bulk of it was sourced to a LiveJournal blog entry, which does not seem to be an appropriate or reliable source. The final quote was from a Guardian article, but the quote made no sense without the preceding Dennis Lehane quote. Lehane's thoughts are certainly relevant, if they were sourced better, but none of it would belong in the "genre" section, anyway, because it is not germane to that subject. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

bad editing on purpose?
I have watched this film a few times and i have noticed that this film has poor scene editing. I was wondering if i was the only one that noticed this. I told this to other people who saw the movie and they thought that it was on purpose to kind of show how teddy views the world and how it is glitched and strange things happen. I know that sounds wierd but i had a hard time putting it into words. If someone else could elaborate that would be great. A great example is when they are interviewing the patients and the woman who tells teddy to run drinks the glass but there is nothing in her hand. Now i know it might be because she is crazy and thinks there a glass in her hand but the next shot is of her putting one down. There are also many scenes that seem to skip in the middle for a few seconds and don't blend correctly. Maybe someone who understood the film more could tell me if it was just poor editing or not and if it was related to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed too, and I got confused a bit about the glass. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I had some similar thoughts but without another source commenting on it, we can't do so as it would be original research. If done some poking around in reviews to see if anyone commented on it in that same way but so far nothing.  Millahnna (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Many of the scenes are from the viewpoint of Teddy/Andrew. He is subject to hallucinations. He has a fear of water - a symptom of the repressed memory of the drowning of his children. That's why the sight of the water glass is blanked out for a moment. That's my personal interpretation; I'm too lazy to hunt for "reliable sources"... Ericlord (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When I started watching, I thought "Thelma Schoonmaker couldn't possibly have edited it". Then I realized the intent was to disorient the viewer. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Asinine updates?
I believe it unwise to characterize revisions to Shutter Island as "asinine" and violates Wiki protocol per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons#Disagree_respectfully David F (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I characterized the massive plot expansion that occurred on 26 November as "unnecessary and asinine" because both of those adjectives were justified. The IP who made those edits clearly knows nothing about how to edit WP, and I am not the only editor who is sick to death of constantly reverting the edits of nitwits who have no business being here in the first place.  The great experiment in allowing "everyone" to edit Wikipedia must end.  Clearly, some people have no business doing so.  And I would characterize the belief that anonymous editing should continue to be allowed on WP as also being asinine.  It is clear they do a great deal of harm. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - unnecessary edits certainly must be frustrating and I think I understand the feelings behind "asinine", "knows nothing", "nitwits", and "no business being here in the first place". I also agree with terminating anonymous editing. However, I'm not so sure the "great experiment" of allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia must end. Further, unless and until Wikipedia policy changes, if experienced editors are unhappy with changes made, I believe this is something up with which experienced editors must put, and I suggest the onus on experienced editors is to disagree with changes respectfully. David F (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Cheers! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Ninth Configuration - 1980
The plot both book and film has a lot of similarities with Blatty's Ninth Configuration, except without the best bar room brawl in cinema history. Still a very atmospheric film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.5 (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the lady drowning her children reminds me of the legend La Llorona. 67.10.202.168 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can source it, by all means... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Shutter Island PC game
I just picked this up at a second-hand enterntainment store, and wondering why is there no article about it, or any references to it in this article. This is a "hidden objects" adventure game based on this movie. Was the game so mediocre (from what I read) that it went ignored by everyone? Cheers. Wildespace (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception section -- mixed reviews?
Like I stated here at the WP:FILM talk page, I came to this article and saw that the lead-in sentence in the Critical reception section describes the film as having received mixed reviews. This struck me as odd because it currently has a 68% Rotten Tomatoes score, which cannot too accurately be described as "mixed," and a 63% score from Metacritic...which outright classifies that score as generally positive. I figured that either an IP changed the lead-in summary to "mixed," or that a registered editor was keeping it that way. And sure enough, I looked into the edit history and saw that TheOldJacobite has been reverting anyone who changes the lead-in summary to "generally positive" (or something very similar). This stopped me from changing the summary.

So this is a case where the lead-in summary should be completely removed, right? Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support "mixed" in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "mixed" belongs at all. I prefer using Metacritic, and one look at its breakdown shows 26 positive reviews, 7 mixed, and 4 negative. (I'm not crazy about Rotten Tomatoes since it operates on a positive-negative dichotomy.) Also, MOS:FILM says, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." To do this, we can do something like Google ""shutter island" "critics" to find periodicals that cover how critics received it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The bigger discussion about this is going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Centralizing the discussion there will save editors from feeling that they have to comment in two different spots on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If, within a few days, the Critical reception section is not changed so that it better reflects the critical commentary of the film, as noted in the now closed WP:FILM discussion about this matter, I will re-open this discussion by re-inviting WP:FILM editors to comment on this matter here at this talk page. I will not be WP:Edit warring over this topic. WP:CONSENSUS, arrived at WP:FILM, about this matter is that "mixed" should be changed to "generally positive" or that a lead-in summary should not be there at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not the final word. The film opened to some critical, negative reviews, which means its reviews were mixed. That's the deal. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic quite clearly show the deal with regard to what critics generally felt/feel about this film. No film gets all positive or all negative reviews. Every film opens to "some critical, negative reviews," as was made quite clear in the aforementioned discussion. That is not how we define "mixed" for film articles here at Wikipedia, and this is the only Wikipedia film article that I know of that ridiculously categorizes a score exceeding 60% as "mixed." Hardly ever is 60% defined as "mixed" in general, let alone a percentage exceeding that. The categorization of "mixed" to describe this film is unsourced and generally at odds with what the sources relay about the film, and that will be remedied.


 * I'm off to re-invite WP:FILM to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Coming from FILM, from the video game project, we will use what MC categorically calls the score (in this case "Generally positive reviews") and often directly quoting that to avoid the original research. (here "Shutter Island has a cumulative score of 68% at Metacritic which considers this "generally positive".). I know the score breakdown is all over the place and the reception section needs to pull from both the best and worst reviews. The only other thing that would help would be to find a meta source that comments on the widely varied reception of the film, so that while the statistics say one thing, the practicality is that the film has a wide variance in scores. --M ASEM (t) 16:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In looking through the Metacritic results, I have to conclude that their algorithm is flawed. For instance, they score The New Yorker at a fairly positive 70% but Anthony Lane writes some pretty rough stuff about the film, such as its being composed of hundreds of cliches, that it is "irreproachably comic", that the film is empty ("nothing really seems to be at stake"). Lane says that, next to Scorsese's films Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, Shutter Island comes up short, that it "flickers and fades", that "the final twist is a fizzle" because Scorsese fails in his pacing. This is pretty damning, and it shows that Lane is not happy about the film even though much of his description of the plot is friendly to the film. This difference between Lane's negative conclusion and the meat of Lane's positive/neutral description of the film is probably where the Metacritic algorithm goes wrong.
 * In reply to Masem, there is no "original research" involved in assessing the views of the critics. Instead, it is the normal job of a Wikipedia editor to accurately represent the balance found in the literature. Assigning that job solely to an automated process such as Metacritic is a dereliction of duty, an abdication of the power of the human mind. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Masem, as noted above, it's Rotten Tomatoes that gives this film a 68% score. Metacritic gives it a 63% score. I'm not seeing what you see with regard to "the score breakdown [being] all over the place." By the way, thanks for weighing in at my request.


 * Binksternet, it is WP:Original research (the WP:Synthesis aspect of that policy) to draw the conclusion that the reception for this film is mixed, if this is not explicitly made clear by a WP:Reliable source (meaning that a WP:Reliable source somewhere out there classifies the film that way). And, like I stated above, if it is made explicitly clear by a WP:Reliable source: "Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support 'mixed' in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking." The fact that the "mixed" summary is at odds with the two main review aggregators certainly makes it dubious to call the reception for this film mixed. Doniago, Corvoe, Erik (not sure if I should ping him since he's likely watching this article/talk page), Masem and myself have been clear about what should be done in this case. There is no valid reason that this article's Critical reception section should deviate from standard practice...unless it's deviating from the standard practice of having a lead-in summary (meaning we should simply refrain from having one for this article). Heck, for good measure, I'll go ahead and ping WP:FILM editors Betty Logan and Tenebrae as well; hopefully, they will also weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at the archived WT:FILM discussion, here are sources to use: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. We should use these as well, especially since RT only assesses a review as either positive or negative. My initial understanding of the consensus is that it is considered a weak Scorsese film. This is reflected here. I can try to draft something this weekend if someone does not beat me to it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of >70% scores assigned by MC, and there's a lot of >30% scores. This is basically means both highly praised and very much panned. While not unheard of, this is a point that it would be great if it could be sourced outside of RT/MC, that the film had a strong range of reviews. (Compared to when we see scores for video games, they nearly always fall within the same +/- 15% of the average score). --M ASEM  (t) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your draft would be helpful, Erik. Thank you. And, Masem, thanks for continuing to contribute to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment My view on this for the last year to 18 months has consistently been to drop that opening sentence. WP:AGG's advice that aggregators are "not arbiters of critical consensus" seems like good advice to me. A comment User:Ring Cinema once made has stuck in my mind: "Rotten Tomatoes does not sample, it surveys". I think that is a very salient point. RT and MC don't at any point attempt to represent the wider critical consensus, they simply assess the reviews that are submitted to them. All the reviews are from English sources, and most are from the same handful of countries, so they draw from a narrow spectrum. Looking at the case of Shutter Island inparticular, in both cases RT and MC judge roughly two thirds of the reviews to be positive so we can skip that first sentence and simply state that i.e. "Around two thirds of the reviews surveyed by review aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Metcritic were considered to be positive". To me, that is a simple statement of fact and avoids any editorializing or assumptions about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment That's been my understanding as well. In case after case, editors argue and edit-war over subjective terms such as "mixed" or "universally acclaimed" (the later even when the "universal" is not 100%). None of these subjective interpretations help the reader. But if the reader sees that "RT's aggregation says this" and "MC's aggregation says this" and reads a sampling of critics' quotes beneath that, then a reader can make up his or her own mind. And we even offer the CinemaScore audience view to give them an even more well-rounded picture. We don't need to open with a claim that's subject to debate. We need to just give the facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with Tenebrae, Betty Logan, and the others who have expressed dissatisfaction with opening sentences.  It's better to just let the reviews speak for themselves.  Otherwise, you get people who invent phrases like "mixed-to-positive", which is almost meaningless.  Is it mixed?  Is it positive?  How positive?  Just quote the aggregators and a representative sampling of reviews.  There's no need for editorializing.  I'm probably guilty of editorializing in some articles, but I generally remove it whenever I see it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would comment that it would be great to see some type of sources statement as to the split in reviews (some praised highly, some panned horribly) so that the reader is prepared, in reading the reception section, that they're going to see two extremes here. --M ASEM (t) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for commenting. Like before, there is strong support to either source the lead-in summary well (meaning with WP:Due weight) or to remove it; there appears to be stronger support for the latter. Betty, I take it that you were speaking in a general sense when you stated, "My view on this for the last year to 18 months has consistently been to drop that opening sentence." Not just for this article. As for lead-in summaries in general, I think that they do help the reader. In fact, it's common that it's our readers who add such summaries. But I think we should only offer those summaries in cases explicitly supported by the sources or in clear-cut cases. And let's face it: There are some clear-cut cases, such as Schindler's List or The Avengers (2012). This is despite The Avengers (2012 film) article currently not offering a lead-in summary in its Critical reception section or even a mention in the lead noting that the film did very well with critics (in my opinion, there should at least be something about its critical success noted in the lead...other than the awards it was nominated for and received). In that case, I stated, "Pretty silly to me to make a big deal out of directly stating that the film is critically acclaimed, or received mostly positive reviews, when it obviously is/did. And while it can be argued that 'It's obvious to our readers as well,' there are a lot of people who are not familiar with Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and will perhaps wonder why it's especially relevant that those sites are mentioned instead of only quoting individual critics."


 * For those interested and unaware, WP:FILM has discussed the lead-in summary topic time and time again; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48 for more recent discussions on the topic. And also see this recent discussion, which resulted in some changes to the film layout guideline. The only thing that WP:FILM seems to be in complete agreement about on the topic of lead-in summaries is that no WP:Original research should be employed and that "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative" should not at all be used. But then again, there is sometimes a bit of disagreement about what is and is not WP:Original research in such discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Erik, with regard to your draft proposal mentioned above... Do you still have any plans for that? Or would you rather one of us take a shot at it? This IP's addition of "positive," while better, is not ideal in this case. "Generally positive," for example, would be more accurate than simply "positive." Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been preoccupied with other things and didn't have this on my watchlist. I have too many things on my wiki-plate, so I can't really guarantee getting around to it. If someone else could do it instead, that would be great. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Wasn't (still isn't) on my watchlist either. But I can try to make time to work on it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"hency why"
I'm changing "hency why" to "which is why", because "hence why" is incorrect English. Thank you. 82.30.214.154 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness that the wording wasn't actually, "hency why", considering that is worse than "hence why." Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Locked
Per a request at WP:RFPP I have locked the article for two days due to edit warring. Please resolve the issue(s) here on the talk page. Also remember that there are multiple avenues open to settling content disputes. See WP:DR if you need some tips. Hopefully the dispute can be put to bed in the next couple of days. If anyone wants to direct any comments or questions to me please ping me or drop a line on my talk page as I am not adding this to my already insane watchlist. Thanks ... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Disregard the above. I have unlocked the article. But please remember not to edit war and be sure not to jump between a registered username and an IP address when editing as this can be viewed as sock-puppetry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary
I don't remember every detail of this film, but in this book, published by McFarland & Company, the author says, "We learn it was DiCaprio's wife who drowned the children – not Rachel Solando". This seems to back up what the IP editor is saying – that it's too interpretive to say that Solando and the guy's wife are the same person. Like I said, though, the plot is a bit hazy in my head. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct, and the IP and its associated registered account was right. Thanks a lot for researching this. I checked the IMDB character list and these conclusions seem to be confirmed. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Cawley explicitly says in the film that "Rachel Solando" is an anagram of "Dolores Chanal", which is DiCaprio's character's wife's name. I'm not sure why this discussion is even taking place. It's very clear cut. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, she's obviously based on his wife, and I don't think anyone has disputed that. The IP editor seems to be saying that she's a composite character formed from DiCaprio's hazy and fractured memories, thus not an exact, one-to-one copy of his wife.  It seems like a legit argument to me, but it's not the end of the world if we call her his wife. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Consequences
TheOldJacobite, with regard to your revert, this detail from Dr. Cawley's monologue is a critical point to the entire story. They were not simply trying a new way to break through to Laeddis, they were trying to make a breakthrough in order to avoid a very specific consequence. Cawley explains that the people in charge of the institution have already dictated that the lobotomy is the next recourse, so the failure of the intricate role-playing treatment does not just mean that they try another random treatment. This also goes to the final moments, when Laeddis isn't simply being taken back to his room by the orderlies - he is being taken for a life changing lobotomy, with one of the orderlies shown carrying the Orbitoclast that will be used for the lobotomy. This also underscores that the film ends with Dr. Sheehan, and the viewer, wondering if Laeddis has made a decision to be lobotomized. Of course, I used the murkier "Laeddis leaves doubt as to his true intent", since it is not 100% stated that Laeddis is faking in order to be lobotomized. Not including this very specific and important "you'll be lobotomized" statement from Cawley means not including the driving force, and consequences, of the entire plot of the film. Jmg38 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see nothing here that conclusively changes the meaning of the film and that requires this change in wording. I want to hear what other editors think and have restored the stable version until some sort of consensus is reached here. --- The Old Jacobite   The '45  01:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Video game adaptation
Apparently there's a video game adaptation - see https://www.ign.com/games/shutter-island

Should this be mentioned in the film article or the novel article or both? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)