Talk:Sucker Punch (2011 film)/Archive 1

Cannot be a GA nominee now
The GA nominee template seems to only have been added here. I am removing the template, though, because it does not meet Good Article criteria as an article about an upcoming film. A key aspect of a film article is the "Reception" section, arguably critical because it is an independent assessment of the film, where details about production are not as independent. Star Trek (film) was nominated as a Good Article long before its release, but it changed a lot since then. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Much more detailed plot synopsis
For anyone interested in finding out more about it.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3332329&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

124.169.76.75 (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Noteworthy Nekkidness?
An actress may or may not get undressed for the film and this is worthy of mention? Ah, fan boys... 24.24.244.132 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Emily Browning will have at least a topless scene in the film, if not a full length nude. More than likely it will be during her check-in to the asylum when they strip her down and dress her as a patient, as is custom for these types of 50's Mental Asylum patient movies. 124.169.76.75 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * Wrong, all wrong. No nudity. ElectricRay (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Full Plot and Ending
Alright, since we'll have to wait years for editors to come to grips with the fact Wikipedia is not censored and cease to revert. What happens at the end? Until we can get a non-instrevert plot section up. 203.59.114.62 (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Gross Revenue
Really trolls? 500 million? In one day? Fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.215.87 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Things that should be added
I think it should be added the reasons for Blue killing Amber and Blondie. "Blue bursts comfunts them and kills Amber and Blondie" is really blunt. He kills Blondie because "everyone hate's a snitch" and Amber for stealing the lighter. Also I think that it should be added that the Wise Man always says "Oh yeah, and one more thing.",that "Babydoll" never actually speaks in reality, only in the Brothel and in her world, and that the four other girls don't experience all of the fantasies "BabyDoll" does. Does it ever say if she was crazy or not? I understand her escaping reality but it seems like she was doing that from the start. Technically, none of the patients ever escaped since Sweat Pea only went to the Brothel to follow her sister who ran away. It could've all been two people the whole time because it never shows anyone in reality(?) except "Babydoll" and SweatPea.Panduzgorawr (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Plots
The bit about the three plots is wrong: the psych ward is not the reality - it is a figment of Sweetpea's imagination - i think the bordello is real. Babydoll (and her dead sister) are imaginary renditions of Sweetpea (and her dead sister Rocket). hence babydoll's message at end "this isn't my story - it's yours" - and hence Sweetpea, and not Babydoll, survives. Babydoll's lobotomy is part of the play (remember?) - and remember how in the opening scene Babydoll is introduced as a character on a theatreset ... in the bordello... ElectricRay (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, nice trolling there. The psych ward is real. The brothel is her perception of the psych ward. And the fantasy world is what she imagines to escape her reality. Try and add your vandalistic trolling to the plot section and you'll be reported. 203.59.114.62 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * Fortunatly your accusation of trolling does not cover the fact that there is a valid point. Numerous points in the film imply that the Asylum reality is not real either. THe early scenes feature technology anachronistic to 1955. This should be considered a valid interpreatation.--64.231.163.101 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about trolling, but I concur with Sutter Cane otherwise. The mental hospital is fairly clearly the "base reality." One thing I'm not sure about in the current plot section is the statement that Baby Doll "imagines" the ending with Sweet Pea and the Wise Man. My guess would be that this is reality. However the nature of the movie is such that it's impossible to be sure about that. Psuliin (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm questioning whether or not Amber and Blondie really died. Given that the brothel was based on the actual reality, it seems unlikely that Dr Gorski would have been there to witness the deaths of Amber and Blondie. It's definately hinted that Blue is going to be convicted for his illegal dealings, but I dont think he actually killed anyone, especially not the patients themselves. Plus there's no actual hint that he killed anyone either, although he did indeed rape the inmates. 24.150.79.101 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Babydoll didn't shoot her sister. Her father beat the girl to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.215.87 (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Babydoll did shoot her sister. It was an accident and she meant to shoot her father. That's why she ran away and dropped the gun in disgust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.99.130 (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Babydoll didn't shoot her sister. Her shot nicks her uncle in the arm and shoots out the lightbulb in the closet. She then rushes into the closet to find her sister already dead. Though it is not shown on screen, it would seem that the step-father killed the sister while Babydoll climbed down the house and back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.202.125 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that BD "finds her sister dead," and leave the exact cause ambiguous, as it is in the film. However I'd just like to point out one thing to anyone who tries to come up with a conclusive "interpretation" of Sucker Punch: anyone who does that will have to explain how a young woman in 1955 managed to equip her imaginary friends (and even some of her enemies) with weapons that wouldn't even exist for another 10, 20, or 30 years. Ultimately, I don't think the movie is really meant to be interpreted in the usual sense.71.198.12.215 (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be incoreect but at the end Dr Gorski states that Babydoll went crazy, stabbed her sister and shot at her step-father, this would be what she was told so it can be assumed that the sister died of a stab wound, obviously from the father. Note the wound in the same place as on Rocket. Speaking of whcih in the Asylum reality there is no implication any of the girls died. When Gorski mentions the trouble she had with Babydoll she only mentions the stabbing of Blue, the fire and the escaped girl. The death of one or three other girls would be a relevent thing to note at this point. --64.231.163.101 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Babydoll definitely did not shoot her sister. The zoomed-in slo-mo exploding lightbulb scene exists for a reason (other than eye candy) - to show that the shot went way high. It's possible the sister died from exploding lightbulb shrapnel, but that's a bit of a stretch. I, for one, think the stepfather stabbed the sister with the letter opener. Also, Dr. Gorski said that Babydoll 'killed' her sister (didn't say how). The 'stabbing' was in reference to the orderly. Good point about her omitting Amber and Blondie's deaths. I wondered about that, too. 205.175.225.12 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Character names
Is babydoll ever named in the Asylum reality or just in the Brothel reality?. Same for Blue and Danforth. All the other girls only receive names in the Brothel reality. What does the "Father" (also unnamed) write on the paper if anythign beyond age 20, sex female?--64.231.163.101 (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Age
Are we absolutely sure that "baby doll" is 20? I assumed that the step-father lied in order to make it easier to get her committed and lobotimized. Also, in her fantasy she is a virgin being sold to a "high roller" who is paying for that virginity. 20 is not a likely age for a young virgin and I'm also sure the high roller is being for her youth as well. I think there needs to be more proof of baby dolls age, we can't take what the step-father said in the movie at face value, as being 20 does not fit with the characters appearance or her role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.27.195 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

-- Lacking information to the contrary, there is no reason to not take the movie's own assertion at face value. He says she's 20, which still makes her underage and a ward of her stepfather until she reaches majority, until the 26th Amendment in 1971, well beyond the timeframe suggested for the movie. He doesn't need anything other than that to commit her for observation, at the least, given the (correct) accusation that she shot her sister. As far as her being a virgin, I also see not the slightest argument against that, since this was the 60s, not the 80s or beyond. I realize this may be unexpected to some today, but a 20yo virgin girl wasn't that unusual in the early part of the 20th century, if the family was (over) protective of her. And her appearance, etc., as for her being called "baby doll", that is definitely applicable to some people even at advanced ages -- both Matthew Broderick and Leonardo DiCaprio both sustained very boyish appearances well into their late 20s and even early 30s. The likely sexual "interest" of the High Roller is a fabrication of the Level 2 subplot, not of actual events in the level 1 reality. It is reasonable to assume that the doctor doing the lobotomies was not actually molesting the women there, regardless of what the guards were doing.

20 should be the specified age until evidence from some reliable source claims otherwise, such as an interview of Snyder himself or a canonical novelization.

''' Is this wikipedia or not?  You go with the facts in evidence, not suspicions and presumption.'''

--24.250.206.199 (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Influences
Why is it that as soon as I saw a trailer I thought of the original X-Blades from 2007 ? http://www.videogamegirlsdb.com/Images/X-Blades/Ayumi/Ayumi_XBlades_FanArt_02.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.206.247 (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a highly 'Hollywoodified' version of a Spanish movie called "El Corazón del Guerrero" (Heart of the Warrior 2000). 80.31.72.17 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This movie incredibly like to Pan's Labyrinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.97.14 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sister's death
Since the film is vague on this point (as evident by the many interpretations), I think we need a consensus on how to phrase the death of the sister. I think either stating flat out that Baby Doll did accidentally kill her or that her Step Father framed her for it is POV at the moment. Until we have a source from the actors or Snyder confirming what actually killed her, I think we should just say that the girl died and Baby Doll was blamed for it. Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

-- I believe it's a reasonable thing to say that Baby Doll did it by accident lacking specific indications from a reliable external source otherwise... That is certainly suggested by the edit of the film I saw. Baby Doll clearly shot at him, the father isn't, as I recall, ever shown firing the gun, and the pipe spitting steam suggests a ricochet that struck her little sister. Her subsequent withdrawal fits the guilt she felt at having done so, too.

--24.250.206.199 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Role of Marius DeVries
In the paragraph on music, Marius De Vries is stated as the composer of the Moulin Rouge score. That is wrong. The score was composed by Craig Armstrong. Marius DeVries was Music Supervisor and produced most of the remixes and songs, but didn't compose the score. 88.153.209.191 (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 184.98.168.207, 8 April 2011
My request is about the age of Babydoll. In the movie, as the stepfather is filling out the paperwork for the asylum, he puts her age down as 20.

184.98.168.207 (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. I know there's a bit of a debate above about her age but as far as we know from the events of the film she is 20.  Thanks for pointing it out; I hadn't noticed someone sneaking in the change.  Millahnna (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Babydoll (Sucker Punch)
This article was recently created, but I don't see how the character is notable independently of this film. Would anyone object if it was merged here?  Them From  Space  00:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything worthwhile to merge, but the article could definitely just redirect here. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur that the character should not have a separate article. Individual characters in movies can only have articles when the character itself is the subject of multiple, independent sources.  This only happens with the most notable films, and especially those that receive critical analysis.  I don't see how this character, especially given that the film was released only a few weeks ago, could qualify.  So, definitely redirect that other article here; I leave it to others to determine if any of that info needs to be brought.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the above article to this one. Robofish (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Extended version
Should this section be expanded with some info about the fact that it has been R rated ? I think this implies, not for the article until I find a reference, that it has the cut sex scene to avoid this in it. Other than numerous references to warner bros releasing the info, i found it alse MPAA filmratings site http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_cara/reports/s10518105.htm LOTG (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reaction
Does anyone else find the Critical Reaction section to be very biased towards negative reviews? Only one positive review is mentioned in the entire section; most films on Wikipedia have at least a few positive reviews to counter negative ones. Also, there have been "professional" reviews that praised the movie for being pro-feminism, but the section focuses entirely on the anti-feminist opinion. Just wondering if the critical reaction could be a bit more neutral in tone. Majesdane (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If a film received mostly negative reviews, wiki usually reflects this. However I take issue with the only critical aspect being the video game-esqu story structure, along with a grossly overdone section about sexism. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This film, namely also the music accompanying it, speak for themselves, anyway. Zola was also heavily criticized, during his lifetime. Not every article on a film can be alike; the specific way a critical reaction is uttered and reflected says much more than any attempt to keep such a section counterbalanced could do, and that in a more neutral way. It is clear that the kind of art presented by Snyder, here, cannot be reviewed in traditional newspapers, very positively, due to certain biases and practices. We can`t counterbalance this, in the Wikipedia, as we only mirror what is told in our sources, and where our sources confine themselves to a certain view, we have to follow them. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if not counterbalance it, could perhaps the paragraph on sexism be edited down some? My issue is the same as Stabby Joe's, wherein I think the sexism point is grossly overstated. I am not objecting to it being discussed as a "sexist movie," but there have been reviews praising the movie for being pro-feminism. I think basically what I'm trying to say here is, if we can't add in at least one other positive review (not necessarily "counterbalance the criticism"), then could we cut down on what seems to be a very unnecessarily critical section of "sexism" claims? It's just that it seems quite biased in tone and Wikipedia strives for neutrality. Majesdane (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I personally have edited this article a little bit (mainly the plot summary), but I do not feel obliged to go through the scrap referring to all those reliable sources. If I wanted to edit down any vulgar allusions by newspapers reported about in the article, I would have to read about that, first, and I do not want to read anything about such things. It is anyway common knowledge that the film is not spoiled by sexism or by any other bad things, because our reliable sources refer to that playfully and ironically enough. The problem is just that there are certain traditions of what can be taken earnest, in certain circles, and that these circles are still working quite hard to find out how they should integrate science fiction and stylistic elements of science fiction into what they report about, earnestly. That is also a question of generations. Science fiction is still evolving, so there is not yet a reliable foundation of which terms one may use to report about it, and so on. I have talked about that very intensively with a doctoral candidate of the university of Tübingen, just about a year ago. Spaceships, for example, can simply not be digested, spiritually, in these circles, even though those who belong to them, just intellectually, already are realizing that that somehow cannot be normal. Sucker Punch even integrates Steampunk! Imagine the New York Times writing:

""Snyder`s "Sucker Punch" delicately integrates Steampunk elements into the fantasies of a young woman who is lobotomized in the Lennox House for the Mentally Insane, thus magnificently subliming the stylistic discrepancies between Germany and the Anglo-Saxon world in the 20th century.""

Everybody who has seen Sucker Punch knows that this is true. But there are not yet enough voluminous works of reference which one could refer to when one is attacked by people who object to it, to ensure that a member of the editorial staff of any traditional newspaper could write this simple truth without risking that the newspaper he resp. she is working for could not endure the ensuing tumult. The readers of these newspapers do not expect to be told what things really are like, but to be given the possibility to indulge in ironical, complicated, not really earnest reflexions about all the world and his brother. That is a very simple fact of nowaday`s world and can, simply, not be changed. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One could also add that some of our news sources that so far are considered reliable seem to lose a little of their reliability, over time, because they don`t seem to be able to judge on this film as on a work of art without referring to Snyder, personally. This decisively questions their neutrality. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a source or anything, but I just paid $27 (after tax) for this movie, and now I wish I hadn't opened the packaging, so I can return it. This movie sucks big sweaty balls. I thought some movies at The Agony Booth or Jabootu's Bad Movie Dimension were bad, but Sucker Punch makes Highlander II: The Quickening look like a Best Picture winner! Apple8800 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your completely unhelpful input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.87.166 (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are perfectly right. One should not buy this movie, but see it in the cinema. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone recently added a new sub-heading ('Review') in the 'Reception' section, followed by a paragraph that was dedicated to summarizing the argument of one article alone. The piece being referred to (see endnote ref 87) was pertinent, but it clearly didn't deserve its own sub-heading. I have shortened the summary of it to one sentence, and added this to the end of the 'Critical Reception' section. Pupsicle (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning of the music video traits in the lead
Thanks to HuskyHuskie for this edit by which he finally inserted the hint to the music video and video game traits of the film, in the lead, without causing any argumentative disequilibrium! --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Critical response section
This section previously contained the following sentence: Sucker Punch received mostly unfavorable reviews from film critics. But an editor came along and changed it, with the following edit summary: '''It is not plausible that any edit with such a summary should be useful. The argumentation was not logical; the other reviews might also have been indifferent.''' I thank the kind editor for taking the time to provide an edit summary; one of my greatest failings as a Wikipedian is my frequent failure to do so, and I have respect for those who are more courteous than I.  Nonetheless, this summary brings up two dubious points, which I wish to address separately.
 * Firstly, It is not plausible that any edit with such a summary should be useful. I'm not sure what the good editor's point is here.  Does he think that, in a "critical reception" section, that we can somehow avoid pointing out negative responses to a film?  Would he excise those from Wikipedia?  I'm utterly, totally confused.
 * Secondly, The argumentation was not logical; the other reviews might also have been indifferent. Well, there is a lack of certitude in almost all things, if we want to push logic to its limits.  But since the following sentence reads, Rotten Tomatoes reports that only 22% of 182 critics have given the film positive reviews., it would seem most likely that the majority of reviews were, in fact, unfavourable.  After all, critics are paid to have opinions, not to sit on fences, and while they may, in fact, occasionally issue "indifferent" reviews, it is far more likely that their reviews were negative.

So, given all this, I plan to restore the previous wording. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not mean Your edit, but that of that IP that You restored. The summary of that edit addressed some not clearly defined person by the word "dumbass". This was what I meant when I said "It is not plausible that any edit with such a summary should be useful."


 * Your above argumentation that the following sentence clearly enough refers to the other reviews being positive is already better than the continuation of the edit summary by that IP, which merely stated that the first sentence already contained such an information on the character of the other reviews, implicitly. Now, unfortunately, I have to say that still this Your argumentation, though better, does not convince me. It is not balanced, regarding the flow of both sentences, first to refer to "mostly unfavorable reviews" and then to shift to an other, but inwardly related subject, and that in a subordinate clause, like this:


 * "Sucker Punch received mostly unfavorable reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reports that only 22% of 182 critics have given the film positive reviews."


 * This is, in my eyes, linguistic ugliness. An incident of such should, of course, be avoided in any article; regarding this one, I count it worthwile to even dedicate a whole discussion like this, here, to the question.


 * You have now removed my hint to some other fact that ran:


 * "(...), while it was also depicted as a very special artistic event, by some film critics."


 * I have inserted this additional information quasi subsequently in the course of the to and fro of our edits. After all, the certain inner disequilibrium that can be seen in this editorial subsequentness unfolded only within the realm of the edit pages so that it cannot be perceived by somebody who only reads the article. I am going to reinsert the statement and to leave it to You to challenge it, separately, if You should count that appropriate. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Hans, let's talk about these two issues (the movie's artistic value, and the "linguistic ugliness").
 * Perhaps there were some reviewers out there who felt as you do about the movie. But because such a statement is a refutation of the primary emphasis of the sentence, it needs some significant sourcing.  Even with that, I'm not certain that I endorse its inclusion in that same sentence, but let's see what you've got, and we'll talk about it.  As it stands right now, it looks like it's just your opinion.
 * Now as to the "linguistic ugliness", I confess I'm not really sure that I follow you. You write, It is not balanced, regarding the flow of both sentences, first to refer to "mostly unfavorable reviews" and then to shift to an other, but inwardly related subject, and that in a subordinate clause, like this: "Sucker Punch received mostly unfavorable reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reports that only 22% of 182 critics have given the film positive reviews."

Are you saying that this is "not balanced" because it speaks first of the critics negative response, and then it talks about the "positive reviews"? Is that your point? I'll wait a bit for your response, hopefully, you're still on line. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have probably got it better than I. It sounds awkward, for me, how there first are mentioned "mostly unfavorable reviews" and then, at the end of the next short sentence, "positive reviews". It generally does not sound well to repeat one and the same word, at short intervals, and here, there is moreover added that the reader`s attention is diverted, in between, very shortly, but with complicated numbers that one strives to keep in mind. This, together, gives a salad that really does not just taste pleasantly, to the utmost. The hint to those several reviews of the different kind that I have inserted seems to me to remove these difficulties.


 * Regarding the critics who have characterized the film as something very special. I cannot only mention three reviews of such reviewers, but also provide a tertiary source that mentions them for me. This tertiary source is the retrospective article about the critical reception of Sucker Punch by James MacDowell of Alternate Takes that is already mentioned and quoted at the end of the current Critical reception section. MacDowell links to the reviews by Adam Quigley (In Defense of ‘Sucker Punch’ – Uncovering the Method Behind Zack Snyder’s Madness, Slashfilm, March 27, 2011; at half height of the website in the MacDowell article, under the blue link "puts it", shortly after the blue words "condescending criticism"), Andrew O'Hehir (The twisted, stupid brilliance of "Sucker Punch", Salon.com, March 24, 2011; shortly after in the MacDowell article, behind the blue "Innocence" under the blue "has noted"), and Scott Mendelson (Sucker Punch -- Genuinely Feminist, It's a Deeper, Darker Confection Than One Might Presume, The Huffington Post, March 24, 2011; toward the end of the MacDowell article, at one third of the height of the website, under the blue "good piece"). MacDowell refers to these articles as to exceptions. He does that, explicitly, out of the general spirit of his own article, i.e. out of the conviction that Sucker Punch is misunderstood, strongly underestimated, and, in reality, a work that consciously tries to furbish up certain problems of popular culture, which he declares himself for in the beginning of the article. The titles of the three linked favorable reviews all clearly confirm that there seems to have been perceived something like a paradox, regarding that the film is only apparently firmly rooted in certain stereotypes of popular culture, so that there does not arise a contradiction to what MacDowell says in his article. Even who does not share the views of MacDowell should still award him the reliability that is needed to quote him as referring to those reviews as to such whose authors share his own views on the film. As there is also one of the renowned Huffington Post, among them, I think we will have to let my remark on these exceptional reviews and their overall tone in the article, and I also think that the remark, for stylistic reasons, can only be made right in the first or the second sentence of the section.--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all Hans, I agree totally with that Alternate Takes review--the people who claim that this movie is misogynistic are just looking for stuff to complain about--the movie is clearly anti-misogynistic (IMO) but somehow people doubt the sincerity of the message. Pisses me off to read some of those mainstream reviews.
 * Nonetheless, I am strongly opposed to the way you have constructed the sentence. The fact is that the overall critical reception was negative.  Pointing out alternative viewpoints is something we do want in this section, but WP:WEIGHT would indicate that if only a fifth of the reviews were positive, that forcing the issue here is not appropriate.
 * I also think, looking at the section above this one, that it is clear that you have a strong personal POV here. No one has contributed more edits to this article than you, and indeed, you have contributed more edits to this article than any other on en.wiki.  I can see it means a lot to you.  But I don't think you can see what I see reading the sections above on the talk page.  When I read comments of yours like,
 * It is anyway common knowledge that the film is not spoiled by sexism or by any other bad things
 * This film, namely also the music accompanying it, speak for themselves
 * It is clear that the kind of art presented by Snyder, here, cannot be reviewed in traditional newspapers, very positively, due to certain biases and and practices
 * I do not feel obliged to go through the scrap referring to all those reliable sources. If I wanted to edit down any vulgar allusions by newspapers reported about in the article, I would have to read about that, first, and I do not want to read anything about such things.
 * I have watched the movie three times in the cinema, very carefully, and never grasped what may be imagined to go on, in that scene. But that is the fate of a work of art, anyway
 * I do not feel these words are representative of someone regarding the movie in an objective manner. I'm going to back away from this for a few days (and suggest you do the same) before commenting further.  I encourage other editors to respond to the discussion that Hans and I have had here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully requested above that you stay away for a few days from editing on the above issue, and you couldn't stay away for 10 hours. Well, I've waited close to a week now, and I've got a few things to say.


 * Actually, I thought I did You a favor, changing the section more toward how You wanted to have it, mainly by the insertion of the words "a small number", referring to those critics who reviewed the film positively. And, anyway: I am not obliged to refrain from editing just because that would please You — am I? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and linguistic awkwardness
I have a problem with the following sentence that leads off the critical reception section:
 * Sucker Punch received mostly unfavorable reviews, while a small number of critics described it, by way of contrast, as a very unusual reflective work that only apparently is based on certain common stereotypes of popular culture.
 * First of all, this sentence, which is the opening of an important section of the article, has only four words indicating negative response to the article, and thirty words that support the movie. Now look, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of critics panned this movie.  As such, not only should the opening sentence be dominated by this fact, it is absolutely 100% acceptable for this microscopic minority to be left out of the opening sentence.
 * Secondly, this sentence is grammatically hideous. I don't know where to begin, there are so many principles of clear writing that it violates.  It's not so much that it's too long, it's just gangly, awkward, presumes antecedent knowledge, and is just plain hard to follow.  I'd be happy to bring the sentence before any group of native English-speakers and let them loose with their criticisms, but hopefully, that won't be necessary.

I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'm going to go ahead and try to improve the opening of the section in accordance with the points I've made here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Some comments on your last two edits, Hans.
 * In this edit,
 * you changed "film" to "movie" several times. This may have been for stylistic reasons (like minimizing the number of uses of the word "film"), but it appears at first glance that you may think "movie" is better than "film".  It is not. And I don't see how your edits are an improvement.
 * In the same edit, you change "most movie critics" to "the majority of critics". Two thoughts on this:  1) "Most" means exactly the same thing as "the majority of", so there is no reason for that change, and 2) your elimination of the word "movie" in this case was a very good edit; my inclusion of the word "movie" was wholly unnecessary in an article like this.  Good work.
 * While I'm sympathetic to your desire to create a link to James MacDowell, I'm going to ask you to read WP:WTAF.
 * Your change of and questions the alleged misogyny of the film. to and questions the film's alleged misogyny. was a good edit, creating a minor improvement in the feel of the sentence.
 * In this edit, it looks like you're trying to be fair, which I appreciate, but I think you misunderstand my intent. This is only my opinion, and I would be very interested in what other editors think, but I don't think there's anything wrong with making a general comment about MacDowell's general feelings in the opening paragraph and then elaborating later on.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  As I'm thinking about it now, I think I can see another way to do it, which I shall give a try in a moment.
 * Okay, so there are my thoughts. Edits coming momentarily. HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My sentence perhaps was not the most simple one.


 * Regarding its grammar, I would really like to know what should have been wrong with it. I changed "most" to "the majority", because I tried to eliminate an awkwardness that I had perceived regarding how the pronoun "it" was making its way into the paragraph, some sentences later, more or less through the back door; this urged me to change several apparently meaningless details at different spots in the paragraph.
 * Well, your removal of "it" in this edit was simply unnecessary. While we do wish to make proper use of pronouns (most notably, avoiding confusion in regards to the antecedent), there was just nothing wrong with the use of "it" in that sentence that you changed.  One other thing:  While there is absolutely no consensus as to when exactly to employ colons, there is, I think, a consensus among authorities that they are used altogether too often.  Many say that it is best to use them only when you just can't figure out another way to say what you want to say.  Accordingly, your unnecessary insertion of a colon in this edit was probably not for the best.HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sentence's content: the number of words used does not decide on how strongly something is stressed. A short statement is often stronger than a longer one. Three out of about 180 critics is not a "microscopic minority", but quite well characterized by the words "a small number". I fear the degree to which I assumed antecedent knowledge — or, better to say, conjured it up through the back door — is little against how You, Yourself, did not prepare the reader to grasp what You mean by the pronoun "it", in the sentence beginning with "However", in one of Your more recent edits. The noun "film", that this pronoun refers to, was, itself, only presented so late, in the sentence after the first full stop, and that, moreover, with a preceding "Aditionally, [the film...]", that this did not really appear well-balanced.
 * Regarding the sentence's content: the number of words used does not decide on how strongly something is stressed.  Well, of course that's true. When did I say (or imply) otherwise? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Three out of about 180 critics is not a "microscopic minority" Hans, it is perfectly natural, normal, and acceptable, for editors to use slightly less formal language on the talk pages.  Note that I did not in the article use that term.  Don't be so sensitive to such things (this is much like your repeated castigation of another editor for using a redundant term--"fictional novel", wasn't it?--and it really doesn't go down well) and presume good will. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear the degree to which I assumed antecedent knowledge — or, better to say, conjured it up through the back door — is little against how You, Yourself, did not prepare the reader to grasp what You mean by the pronoun "it", in the sentence beginning with "However", in one of Your more recent edits. The noun "film", that this pronoun refers to, was, itself, only presented so late, in the sentence after the first full stop, and that, moreover, with a preceding "Aditionally, [the film...]", that this did not really appear well-balanced. I've read this three times and I can't figure out what you're talking about. Sorry. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WTAF (Wikipedia:Write the article first) only refers to lists, templates, and disambiguation pages. Within the texts of articles, redlinking is explicitly encouraged, by the Manual of Style. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected; thank you for illuminating the matter for me. HuskyHuskie (talk)

Criticism of writing
. . . this is much like your repeated castigation of another editor for using a redundant term--"fictional novel", wasn't it?--and it really doesn't go down well). HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor called my work an "unencyclopedic section based on fiction", moreover.--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah? So what?  He's entitled to that opinion, and if your skin is so thin that you can't handle someone criticizing your work, then you need to find something else to do.  He did nothing wrong in making that observation.  If he felt that your writing was "unencylopedic", what was he supposed to do?  Say that it was "really good but I'm going to delete it anyway."?  Hans, we all spend time on the receiving end of criticism for our writing, and that's just part of the Wikipedia experience.   Period. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, You violated the copyright by inserting my contribution above as if I had done that, myself. I am therefore not going to read Your contributions on talk pages, any more. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I explained in my edit summary why I was moving this, thereby demonstrating good faith. And you, Hans, have just shown your true colors.  Over the past several days, you have repeatedly dismissed the opinions of others for (what appear to me to be) nonsensical reasons, you have been guilty of bad faith by accusing others of engaging in polemics, with no discernible basis, claimed that your ability to evaluate your own English skills are superior to those of the native speakers editing here,  and avoided addressing concerns by deleting criticisms and comments and have now engaged Wikilawyering-type excuses to avoid discussion.  And these are just a few examples. I have gone beyond what should be expected to demonstrate good faith, but you have now exhausted it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The fate of the little sister
Half of the summaries out there say the step father killed the little sister, the other half claim it was a stray shot from Babydoll. Where does the Babydoll theory come from? One shot clearly goes through the light on the ceiling, and the other goes through the step-father's arm and into the vent behind him. The little sister's body was around the corner in the next room. That theory doesn't add up. Treewaller (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have watched the movie three times in the cinema, very carefully, and never grasped what may be imagined to go on, in that scene. But that is the fate of a work of art, anyway. I`m just trying to write my first novel and, somehow, I only now see how strongly an author has to fade out things, again and again. That is exactly what the reader resp. the spectator wants, because it guarantees pastime. Sucker Punch is very widely an entertaining work of art, not so much a deep and thoughtful one. I`d say Snyder and Shibuya have consciously let that spot a little unclear. The unclarity of the question what may have caused the little sister`s death is, of course, first a little annoying for the spectator, but merges, as I see it, quite magnificently with the overall annoying situation of Babydoll being captured after having climbed down the gutter and then being institutionalized. It is one of the very basic principles of cinematography that smaller things have to set the standard for bigger ones. Snyder and Shibuya — You can be quite sure that they have done that consciously — at this spot of the film have even set the standard for a consciously aimed-at even bigger annoyance of the spectator that is contemplated to follow immediately, by this unclarity around the death of the little sister. At the same time, the little sister`s death in a manner of speaking quickly and easily reconciles the spectator with Babydoll`s ensuing institutionalization so that he, altogether, sees that he has to bite the bullet.


 * It would indeed be great to find some reliable source that contains something regarding this, and to include it into the article. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bullets travel fast and go through many things, and the sister was on the floor behind the step-dad. The lightbulb and pipe were both in the closet with the little sister. A fragmenting bullet could easily kill the sister, with another fragment going through the step-dad's arm. 68.226.20.51 (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The gun Babydoll uses is an M1911A1 pistol which fires the .45ACP cartridge, which travels slower than any other common military or personal defense round. This fact, combined with heavy bullets and common barrel twists, results in a low probability of bullet fragmentation and low kinetic energy of fragments resulting from terminal interactions. The scene in the movieis unintelligible. If the stepfather previously shot the other daughter, why is there no visible reaction to the fired shot from Babydoll? I think close analysis of Gumby re-runs might be more worthwhile than picking apart the plot of this movie.98.240.67.27 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think close analysis of Gumby re-runs might be more worthwhile than picking apart the plot of this movie. Spot on! HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 98.240.67.27, I wish you had a registered account so I could give you a barnstar. That was hilarious, and so very, very true. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For our purposes, this is irrelevant. That she was blamed for the death, and thus sent to the institution is what's important. Millahnna (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Training section
You know, I have to agree with the anonymous editor who removed the second paragraph of this. It is very redundant. What little extra information is there can easily be incorporated into the first paragraph without losing anything of value. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah now that I take a closer look that section needs some reorganizational lurve. I didn't catch it because I was using Ctrl-F in a way that wasn't going to see the problem (brackets around names).  I think the only thing that isn't in the first paragraph is the statement from Abbie about the training schedule.  Millahnna (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Speculative Content
Lately some users have started adding very speculative content to the page in regards to the movies plot. Hints and suggestive aspects of the movie are being added to the plot summary as facts, while ofcourse they are not. For instance, one user perstistently keeps adding the line "After being rescued from Blue, Babydoll slightly smiles suggesting she's not completely lost..." I would like to say to this user that if you want to theorize about the movie, find a fansite and discuss it there. Wikipedia is about facts and should not contain any speculations (unless speculations are the subject). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rose Garden?
I Never Promised You a Rose Garden (novel). Very similar plot. Should this be mentioned or added to see also section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can find reliable secondary sources linking them, then we can mention it; otherwise, it's original research to make the connection. Elizium23 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I just saw the movie for the 1st time and noticed how very similar it was. I don't really care if the two stories are linked. WP has non-fiction articles that I should be working on. I don't have time to find a secondary source, but others may wish to google it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

An extensive analysis
The sister is already dead when Baby Doll arrives. If you watch closely the bullet ricochets off the light bulb and off a pipe hitting her sister which gives the step father a way to have her committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.209.200 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Up to anyone if they want to consider incorporating all or part of this in the article itself:

Here's an analysis -

Level 1 -- Real World. Her mother dies. The abusive stepfather tries to lock her in, and molest the sister. She attempts to kill him but accidentally kills her sister instead. The father uses this to commit her and gain full control over the assets left to the two girls (note that he is shown enraged by the terms of the will that left it all to the girls). Blue and his orderlies are real and abusive. This is within the realm of potential reality in the 1930s-1950s type lunatic asylum scenario depicted, the impression one always got was that they could be grim and vile places where many evils were perpetrated. In this real world, Baby Doll does set a fire (depicted), does stab Blue (result depicted), does enable another inmate to escape (described by Gorski, not depicted, nor is the inmate shown or identified -- this is somewhat of a red herring -- see L3 para2 below) and does get lobotomized using forged papers by Blue, and Blue does get caught and taken away partly as a result. Real people: Baby Doll, Blue, Dr. Gorski, The High Roller/Lobotomist

''' Level 2 -- the Brothel/Dance Hall. ''' Baby Doll creates this when she sees the theater, as an analogue of the real world. People: As suggested above, each of the girls probably represents some part of Baby Doll herself -- her courage and determination (Amber), her cowardice/fears (Blondie), her strength (Sweet Pea), her innocence (Rocket). Each of them acts in concert with Baby Doll to obtain the items that Baby Doll has decided are needed to escape (see below) and/or encourage her to continue fighting... She needs all of them to succeed in her escape plan, hence the fact that they all need to "come together" and agree to try. All the others (Madame Gorski, Blue, The Mayor, The High Roller, etc.) are analogues of other people in the asylum, some of whom she does in some sense or another get sexually involved with (see below). Note that the cook attempts to rape Rocket, but Baby Doll saves Rocket -- she saves her innocence. The cook failed to rape her in the real world. (see below) Later on, when she is dancing, she's possibly not actually being raped, but doing a lap dance or some such that is so good that the guys in question don't actually have sex with her before losing control. Thus she manages to gain the implements she needs to execute her plan. The analogy here is that, until she's been lobotomized in the real world, she could say what has been done to her, and then authorities could check on it, so that's why no real sex can occur until The High Roller does his job. Blue is "keeping her in reserve" until that point, by only allowing non-penetrative sex -- fondling, and so forth. When Baby Doll is attempting to get the knife, something screws up in the real world, and the cook realizes what she's up to, this time actually rapes her -- killing Rocket, her innocence, with a knife (symbolic enough for you?). Note that Blue is upset "What have you done!?!" or something like that... he probably said this in L1 and L2. Note that Madame Gorski is helpless to stop Blue. In the real world, it's because she's clueless about his activities, but for the purpose of Level 2, it really doesn't matter why she's helpless, we just know she's someone who doesn't want the girls (i.e., Baby Doll) hurt, but can't stop it from happening. Note that L1 Dr. Gorski never mentions a girl getting killed. That's because Rocket was all in Baby Doll's head, an avatar of her innocence. The innocence was killed, not a real person.

Level 3: The 'Matrix' World This, of course, is the purest fantasy world, where she learns, from "the wise man inside her", what she needs to escape, then she battles the vastly more powerful seeming forces arrayed against her to obtain the things she needs to escape. Nothing here is real at all, it's just another way of looking at her tasks. There are loose analogies to the second and first levels, but not close ones.

This is where the final scene is actually taking place, hence the presence of The Wise Man, who previously, you'll note, has only been seen on this level. That's the key, as he exists nowhere else. It's where Baby Doll's mind has gone after the lobotomy -- it's where part of her (Sweet Pea, her inner strength) was able to escape to. Note that she realized she had to give up part of herself to the lobotomy in order to escape with that other part of herself to Level 3 permanently.

-

That's my take on what's real, what's not.

Baby Doll is the only one of the girls who really exists. All the others are aspects of herself. In the end, a part of her escapes to Level 3, where no one can touch her ever again.

Note: There ARE real-world, "level 1" analogues for the girls themselves, and the one named "Sweet Pea" was who she helped to escape in the real world, as mentioned by Dr. Gorski. But you never really see her, except perhaps briefly in the initial theater scene. All subsequent events, and I do mean ALL, take place in Baby Doll's mind. Also, it's been suggested to me, and I find it worthy of mention, that the girls being shot in Level 2 is analogous to them being lobo'd in Level 1. Obviously, Blue does it in Level 2 but he's "arranged" for it in Level 1.


 * It's very interesting but to include it in the article would be original research unless reliable sources are coming up with a similar analysis. Millahnna (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything that happens in Levels 2 and 3 are in Sweet Pea's mind, not Babydoll's. You'll notice near the beginning that the perspective shifts to Sweet Pea during the theater scene. It technically never leaves her perspective at all. This is what is meant when Babydoll says, near the end of the film, "This was never my story, it's yours." The story starts out with Babydoll's story from the opening scene up until the theater, and from that point on, it's all Sweet Pea's mind, with the levels 2 and 3 fantasies. Sweet Pea only comes back to level 1 after she flees the asylum. This explanation makes a lot more sense if you watch the extended version of the film, as there were a few very scenes that were cut out of the original release, which were very important to the overall narrative of the movie. 24.28.13.74 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly how I percieved it. I think it's definitely worth mentioning that Amber, Blondie and Rocket aren't real. That much was made clear when they were killed.

Sweet Pea was real, to an extent.. We saw her with Dr. Gorski right at the start of the film when Babydoll is being shown the Theatre, and as you say she's obviously the girl that Babydoll helped escape. But she never actually helped Babydoll at any point, that part was all in Babydolls head. I guess what I mean is that the representation of Sweet Pea that we see in the film is just a personality that Babydoll has made up for the girl she saw in the Theatre. Does that make sense..? It does in my head, but it's kinda hard to put into words.

I just think that if this gets put into the article (which it definitely should, because the person who wrote this analysis is 100% correct), then you'll need to make that last part clear in order to avoid confusion. --94.171.184.82 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"[...] the person who wrote this analysis is 100% correct [...]" I don't see a source for anything that the poster has said. It is all pure speculation, so unless you are Zack Snyder, you can't really say whether this person's theory is correct or not. I, for one, don't see the girls as a figment of Babydoll's imagination--we've seen them all in the initial theatre scene. It's all up to how we interpret it, and, unless you have a source, this is mere speculation, and therefore shouldn't be added. 2.221.82.147 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Sucker Punch (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090424032225/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i5d08aae04387a06d36176d0c40146ca6 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i5d08aae04387a06d36176d0c40146ca6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708061205/http://blogs.usaweekend.com:80/whos_news/2009/01/zack-snyder-on.html to http://blogs.usaweekend.com/whos_news/2009/01/zack-snyder-on.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802014316/http://www.ugo.com:80/ugo/html/article/?id=16899 to http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=16899

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)