Talk:Tár/Archive 1

All caps?
Is there no reliable source for the way the title is written? Last year on the set here in Berlin, the signs were all caps: TÁR. Alandeus (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Deadline, which was the first to report about the film, has gone from TAR to Tár, in the article that revealed that it was the name of the protagonist, is a more reliable source than any other as far as I can see. Signs, press releases, etc., which frequently employ all caps for titles, don't amount to anything. It could of course turn out that the title is not only a personal name but simultaneously an acronym for something, but without a reliable source supporting such an idea there's no reason to capitalize it. Nardog (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Re Special:Diff/1091325385: We prefer secondary sources to primary sources and, besides, the Focus Features website uses all caps for Belfast, Captive State, Dark Waters, Harriet, Emma, etc. Primary sources use all caps all the time for stylistic purposes so it doesn't amount to anything. If the title means more than just the protagonist's name, then what is it? Unless there's a reliable source showing it's also an acronym, there's no scenario in which using all caps would be justified. Nardog (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I admire your dedication to detail—but also hope you remember to get out now and then [smile]. – AndyFielding (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Plot Discussion?
Recent concern raised by user @TexasTeam about the plot summary. "The plot summary was recap of the entire story which was written verbatim with every scene and every moment of the story which is against Wikipedia rules" And followed up with the deletion of the entire plot section, leaving a stub. Upon review, I believe that Texas Team was correct and that the plot summary featured a number of elements that were too episodic and irrelevant to the overall plot. So, I undid their deletion and performed a series of 4 revisions, which reduced the word count by about 300, hoping to streamline and write a more cohesive, but still comprehensive plot summary. I consulted How to write a plot summary as well as a couple of good articles Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, 12 Years a Slave (film), and Whiplash (2014 film). In order to get a ball park appropriate length for plot summaries to be 560-700 words. Right now The article is at 687 words. I thought I had managed to remove a lot of the more extraneous, episodic elements from the summary, but TexasTeam removed the summary, again replacing it with a stub. @Rusted AutoParts reinstated the plot summary soon after.

So, what should we do about this plot summary? Personally, I think it's at a place right now that's good, but could always use some finagling to cut it down just a little bit more. Which I trust users will do with time. But I'm curious to hear @TexasTeam's take and see if we can get a resolution to this where everyone walks away happy. A Little Alien (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it meets the 400-700 word limit per MOS:FILMPLOT, it's fine to keep as is. Per WP:SPOILER, we are able to include the the plot entire. Rusted AutoParts  05:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just affirming that this plot summary works, it's out-of-line to take it out. Further fine-tuning is always welcome, but I agree it works as is. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

P&A Budget in lead
There’s no reason to omit the New York Times’ reported $35 million P&A cost in the article, especially is the only defense for its removal is “the information did not come from Box Office Mojo or the studio”. It’s perfectly normal and acceptable to cite publications for budget costs (whether that be Variety, THR, or NYT). TropicAces (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

minor edit suggestions
I think it is incorrect to qualify Sharon Goodnow as "sickly". She takes beta blockers, as do tons of people. And it is Lydia who uses (steals!) them to calm herself down. A favorite remedy of performers to combat stage fright. I imagine that this detail and the beautiful scene built around it is important because "time is the thing". 163.5.123.35 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Another minor edit suggestion. "In Berlin" is not where Lydia Tar received the Vita Sackville-West book. The gift was left by Krista (silhouette visible outside hotel) at the hotel reception in New York, given to Lydia by Francesca, and opened (and discarded) by Lydia in the airplane bathroom returning to Berlin. Could "In Berlin" be changed to "Before leaving New York" ? Remove "In Berlin" ? Eos19 (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Separating Fact from Fiction In Movie and TV descriptions
I was extremely disappointed with Wikipedia's posting regarding the feature film Tar. Their listing failed to mention that the Protagonist is not a real person. The response I received from my initial contact with Wikipedia concerning my initial complaint was "Must every article about a movie about a fictional character specifically state that the character is fictitious? To which I answered, Yes. Otherwise they are merely repeating a clever advertising ploy to trick viewers into believing the Protagonist was a real person. Fisher92F (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Every case needs to be treated differently, but yes, the clear overall effect should not be that a work of fiction appears to be a biopic or documentary. I have already added the word 'fictional' to the opening sentence and removed some of the 'in-universe' text. Maybe more can be done without 'hammering the point home' needlessly. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Max
I have to say that I have not yet seen the film. However, I could not help noticing the following sentence in the plot summary: 'Max grudgingly storms out.'. I am rather puzzled as to how anyone can 'grudgingly' storm out of anywhere. Could someone with more knowledge have a look at this? Sbishop (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Max gets up from the piano stool, collects his things, looks at Tár, says, "You're a fucking bitch!" and leaves, at a moderato pace; no storming. OTOH, I think his self-description as "BIPOC pangender person" and his characterization of J. S. Bach as "white, male, cis ... Just not my thing" should not have been removed from the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Box Office
I've altered the lead and 'box office' section to emphasise the notable contrast between the movie's critical reviews (the highest praise) and its box office performance (extraordinarily, recouping less than 20% of its budget).Emmentalist (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have edited again to emphasise the contrast noted above. The citations make it clear that the film failed badly at the box office while being highly rated by art-house audiences and critics. This disjunction is notable and should not be reverted without counter evidence and relevant citations. Moreover, no citations already at the article suggested that a reduction in Covid-period audiences across the board was a signficant contributing factor to Tar being a box-office flop. Finally, it is noted at other Wikipedia articles that cinema audiences had largely returned to normal by the time of Tar's release (very late 2022). Please do not revert my edits without consensus here. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Could editors consider expressing an opinion on this in order to help achieve consensus? I have edited the 'box office' section which has been altered again to euphemise in respect of the scale of the film's box office failure. The failure is notable because of the very large gap between high crtitical esteem and very poor commercial performance. An editor has changed the text to understate the latter; "the film was not a financial success"; this is an unhelpful euphemism and was not preceded by discussion and consensus here. The lead is much stronger ("a flop") and this section should reflect that. A film is not a financial success if it fails to provide an expected return to investors; typically, this means that the rate of return should be equal to or exceed industry norms. Making a profit alone does not make a film a financial success. Making a small loss is another clear marker of lack of financial success. This film, where investors have lost 80% of their money, is a financial disaster and this should not be euphemised. The director, actors et al will gain the prestige (and increased future earnings on other projects) which extends from the film's spectacular critical success, while the investors will lose almost all of their money. This dichotomy is a matter of note which should not, imho, be veiled in this article. Emmentalist (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the ending supposed to be set in the Philippines?
In the credits, they mention they filmed in Thailand, so I assumed it was meant to be set Thailand and I can't remember any specific signage or lines of dialogue that insinuate that it is set somewhere else, but I wouldn't want to revert a good faith edit without checking first. A Little Alien (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it's set, so I'm going to change it to Southeast Asia until someone confirms where it's set within the story of the film. Does that work? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference to Apocalypse Now certainly put me in the mind of the Philippines. Priceyeah (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The dialogue in those scenes are also in Tagalog, I believe. 41.23.43.223 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two random Google checks of names from the Monster Hunter Orchestra show that Fasai Buranasiri has played with the Thailand Philharmonic Orchestra, and Nut Wuthithepbuncha is a Thai percussionist. The Siam Sinfonietta (Bangkok, Thailand) conducted by Blanchett, is in the credits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per The Daily Beast: "She takes a gig in an unidentified Southeast Asian country—the sequences were filmed in Thailand..."  You can see the quote here:  https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/the-ending-of-cate-blanchetts-tar-explained-including-the-monster-hunter-video-game-concert 108.211.187.199 (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the subs clearly state the language is thai at the train station  f s  00:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The screenplay references Tagalog, Makati, the Bumbungan River, and "Filipinos in RPG gack". Nardog (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute
Hi there are too many IPs committed a content dispute with certain edits to report, this needs extended-confirmed protection. CastJared (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , I made the request at WP:RFPP twice now and have gotten nowhere. Maybe if another user makes the request it will be re-evaluated. Novemberjazz 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not, so far, a box-office success.
Revert here: [].

It does seem encyclopaedic that this is one of those critically acclaimed films which - at least initially - has bombed at the box office. It’s in the article and I thought deserved a mention in the lede Springnuts (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Monster Hunter
The very end of the plot section says she composes music for Monster Hunter. This is obviously false but idk what the correct ending is. If someone who knows the ending could fix it, that'd be great 2603:3003:3608:8300:D5B:560D:CA03:40BA (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that and never did. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC
Me and a couple of other editors have inserted/re-inserted variations (in what is now the lead and in the 'box office' section) on the fact that Tár the movie, the subject of this article, had a very poor general public response to its release. The film was manifestly a great critical success. The juxtaposition is notable, but in any case the widely reported facts of both the poor general results and the public discussion of them are unarguable. There seems to me (I am not the most experienced editor and have no skin in this game but am simply trying improve the article) that the constant deletion of well-reported facts is rather odd. I do not accuse anyone at all of bad faith, certainly not, but I do wonder why obvious, notable and relevant facts keep being deleted. I have marked the matter RFC in order to learn from editors more experienced. I will not edit again for now as I do not wish to get involved in edit-warring. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I understand the question, yes: It seems reasonable to say that A: the film was criticially praised and B: the film had a poor box office. Cheers, ~ HAL  333  19:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HAL333 Emmentalist (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that it had "poor general public response" is bad wording and incorrect, IMO. It doesn't seem like it did (the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is >70% positive... I don't think it has a CinemaScore).
 * But yes, there are certainly cites that back up the claim that it had disappointing box-office performance, and wording to that end seems fine in the lead. I cleaned up the Box office section to reflect this and I'm not strictly opposed to putting a line about this in the lead -- we have NYT, Guardian, and Variety all lamenting the box office performance of this movie. That's plenty. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 23:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also FYI in general that RFCs should be phrased as one-sentence questions 😉, see WP:RFCBRIEF. For future reference. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for this. And for the WP:RFCBRIEF tip! I realise now I was bonkersly verbose! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with SiliconRed about the specific phrasing used. It's always important to retain the descriptions of the cited sources, because even a slight reinterpretation can vastly change the perceived meaning of a statement, and thus its verifiability. I think what you meant in saying "poor general public response" was specifically that the box office performance was poor, which is of course supported by sources when phrased in that way with that context. It seems like most of the contention with what you added came from anonymous users, and the sources definitely support what you originally added. Rman41 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Rman41 (talk). I'll wait until another month of box office performance has passed (although most sources do extrapolate from the first week or two) then edit as you suggest if no-one else has. It seems likely that the film will do well as the various annual award ceremonies and that might change the arc of its general release, so I guess it's better to wait to see how it pans out. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd avoid audience reception since it's kind of a nebulous concept. The reception section should stick to critics and box office results. Nemov (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"Monika Willi" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monika_Willi&redirect=no Monika Willi] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Nardog (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"widespread acclaim"
acclaim. Noun. Enthusiastic and public praise.

If we only write "acclaim", no reader, anywhere in the universe, will wonder: "Hmm, but was that acclaim just from one person?" They will assume it means from critics generally. We only need to get specific if there's anything specific to write about: acclaim in one country, perhaps, but not another.

"Widespread acclaim" is therefore needless and hyperbolic. But hey, why not pull out all the stops and go for the complete tautological hat trick: "widespread critical acclaim from critics"? Popcornfud (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * How about an alternative formulation, eg:
 * 'Tar received acclaim from film critics, directed especially towards.....' Sbishop (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No good — if we say "the film received acclaim", readers will assume we are talking about film critics, not random people on the street. Popcornfud (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"TAR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TAR&redirect=no TAR] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"Due to Sebastian's accusations, Lydia decides to not promote Francesca to assistant conductor"
... the one instance of nepotism / favouritism that the board and the orchestra might grudgingly have accepted as earned. 2A01:CB0C:761:5B00:F9A9:D89:7240:D0B1 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)