Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 4

Expanded Plot and a new Concepts sections
I saw Tenet in the cinema and thought, hmmm. Then I saw it streaming (several times), and did more research online, and realized it was more coherent than I gave it credit for. It is probably one of the most complex films I have ever seen. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the 700-word limit does not apply to Tenet (it specifically mentions exemptions for non-liner timeline films, and even mentions Nolan's earlier, less complex film, Memento), and I believe that it does need a little more elaboration (e.g. no mention that Sator was communicating with the future, that the future wants to wipe us out, that the film takes place over 2 weeks and loops back on itself so that the Opera, Vietnam and final Stalsk-12 events take place at almost the same time etc.).

However, I do not believe that it should be expanded above circa 900-words as some of the Plot is best discussed via a new section on "Concepts". A Concepts section would include terms like the "Timeline" (this is a fantastic graphic of the 2-week timeline - would be great if we could do/source a non-copyvio version): Tenet Timeline), the concept of a Temporal Pincer (which is where Tenet gets its name - ten minutes forward and backward), and the "Grandfather paradox" (and how it applied to Tenet), the "turnstiles" etc etc. This would make a more powerful article, and there are, literally, a hundred quality RS now explaining such terms. However, I don't want to start to do this if there is resistance to it, and there is edit warring etc. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is basically a proposal to add a bunch of inappropriate WP:FANCRUFT to the article. We would only add extensive coverage of fictional elements in the film, such as the temporaral pincer concept, if it had received extensive coverage by notable reliable sources.
 * I don't think you're grasping what Wikipedia is trying to do here. It is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article about a work of fiction to explain the events of a plot. It's just a summary that is supposed to support the rest of the article. I feel the previous version of the summary adequately summarised the events of the film and frankly it could probably have benefited from being shorter.
 * You have already expanded the plot section beyond the word limit specified in the WP:FILMPLOT guideline. You have no consensus for this and the guideline does not support what you're doing. The guideline says "Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." It does not say "If you personally feel it can't be contained within the proper range, then enforce your version of it whether you have consensus or not." Popcornfud (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not "fancruft", this is actual events in the film explained outside of the Plot section because they are so complex. It is becoming clearer from my brief interactions with you that you have a strong level of ownership of this article, and an agressive defense of the slightest attempt to edit the article outside of your position.  It is not credible that the plot of such an incredibly complex film, for which WP:FILMPLOT explicitly makes an exception, should be kept to the same word count as an ordinary film.  Your responses (above, and on my talk page, and on your own talk page to another editor), indicate a strong unwillingness to act in a collaborative fashion, and to ignore any WP guidelines (e.g. 3RR or the WP:FILMPLOT exceptions). 109.255.90.188 (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're trying to enforce a change that isn't supported by guidelines, when there is opposition to your idea, and without getting consensus first. That's it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, and your unwillingness to engage in the discussion, and attempts to shut it down (even with 3RR), underline the behavioral issues above. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're trying to enforce a change that isn't supported by guidelines, when there is opposition to your idea, and without getting consensus first. That's it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, and your unwillingness to engage in the discussion, and attempts to shut it down (even with 3RR), underline the behavioral issues above. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this film is an example par excellence for the exception in WP:FILMPLOT: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." There can be no contesting that the plot of this film is non-linear and intricate. Popcornfud is simply wrong when stating that a longer plot than 700 words is in violation of the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, since the guideline allows for exceptions, and this is clearly one of them. His reverts for no other reason than the plot length, are unacceptable. Such formalistic reverts do injustice to editors who try to improve this article. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Popcornfud is simply wrong when stating that a longer plot than 700 words is in violation of the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, since the guideline allows for exceptions, and this is clearly one of them
 * If I saw a need for the extra detail the IP is campaigning for, then I'd say sure, let's exceed the limit. But I don't. And I don't think the IP is right to uniltaterally decide to make that exception and then edit-war to enforce their version without getting consensus, in violation of WP:BRD.
 * BTW, the funny thing about the Pulp Fiction and Memento plot summaries is that they're both under 700 words. Popcornfud (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is you, Popcornfud, who is edit warring, and it is you, Popcornfud, who is trying to abuse BRD into preventing any - even minor - edits to the Plot section (for which there are admins who would block you for such abuse of BRD, in trying and "control" content and prevent collaboration). This plot is obviously substandard to anybody who has an understanding of the film and gives the reader only a partial recount of the key events in the incredibly complex film plot.  Nobody would recommend that someone should read this plot to understand the film as it is so incomplete - you would have to look elsewhere.  Helpfully, WP:FILMPLOT specifically anticipates this, however, your own determined "crusade" (and edit warring), to maintain the plot section to 700-words regardless of how unsatisfactory it is, is getting in the way of editors trying to collaborate to fix the issues with the plot section. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Err no. You made the change to the plot and I rolled it back. At no point have you stopped to get consensus before re-adding the change. You've just ploughed on. Popcornfud (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) Clarifying a "trinket" was a "red trinket", and minor changes, does not require consensus – it was you who repeatedly reverted it. As I said above, there are admins who understand the gaming of BRD, and are experienced with editors who try to abuse it to "control" articles, as you are doing here, with the outcome of an inferior article. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I have no problem with a good plot section that is under 700 words. My main problem is the mistaken assumption that the simple fact that an edit causes the plot section to become larger than 700 words is by itself sufficient reason to revert that edit. That I vehemently disagree with. Regarding this you might want to read Erik's comment at WT:MOSFILM. If you would have said that the new plot is of inferior quality, like containing fancruft, I would not have had any problem with that, but you clearly stated repeatedly in edit summaries that the only reason you reverted was the length of the plot section. That I think is unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said above: I feel the previous version of the summary adequately summarised the events of the film and frankly it could probably have benefited from being shorter. I do not feel the additions from the IP, like the colour of the "distinctive trinket", are essential. I feel the fact that these additions take it over the recommended word count should bolster this argument, not make it weaker. Popcornfud (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. If an edit to a plot section is inferior, for whatever reason, than the fact that it resulted in an overly long plot section is indeed an additional argument to undo that edit. However, you stated very clearly that your problem with the edits was only the resulting length of the plot section. If you want to tell us that your edit summary was inadequate/incorrect, then I'd say that was unfortunate, but hey, it happens. However, I really want to be sure that you understand that a simple word count can not by itself justify reverting an edit to a plot section. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well look, maybe it was the wrong tack to take. But the situation as I see it is that we have an already bulging-at-the-seams summary and an editor comes along and adds details to it that I view are unnecessary. I could then oppose that by saying "These details are unnecessary", or I could point out that this is now taking the summary over the recommended limit (at which point we want to have a good reason to make an exception, and we should come to an agreement over it first). I went with the second option because in my experience most editors are more receptive to guidelines than more subjective arguments about whether the details are unnecessary. I stand by both arguments. Popcornfud (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In this specific case the changes were minor, so reverting them was not a big deal. On the other hand, they didn't introduce that many new words, so leaving them was not a big deal either. In the wise words or Erik at WP:MOSFILM: "the 700-word count is arbitrary ... If it is like 750 or 800, it is not arduously encyclopedic." I think we understood each other, and hope we won't have to return to this subject in the future. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well look, maybe it was the wrong tack to take. But the situation as I see it is that we have an already bulging-at-the-seams summary and an editor comes along and adds details to it that I view are unnecessary. I could then oppose that by saying "These details are unnecessary", or I could point out that this is now taking the summary over the recommended limit (at which point we want to have a good reason to make an exception, and we should come to an agreement over it first). I went with the second option because in my experience most editors are more receptive to guidelines than more subjective arguments about whether the details are unnecessary. I stand by both arguments. Popcornfud (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In this specific case the changes were minor, so reverting them was not a big deal. On the other hand, they didn't introduce that many new words, so leaving them was not a big deal either. In the wise words or Erik at WP:MOSFILM: "the 700-word count is arbitrary ... If it is like 750 or 800, it is not arduously encyclopedic." I think we understood each other, and hope we won't have to return to this subject in the future. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There seem like there are two discussions here. One about a particular plot change, and another about adding a new section with additional information. It may be helpful to separate these discussions, providing diffs or actual specific suggestions to change the plot as well as specific sources that would be cited in the new section. That may also help keep the focus on the content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Plot
Just focusing on this, I would like to amend the Plot to a slightly larger size, and in particular: There are copies of the script online, so we can be accurate with specific words/phrases, which would also help reduce the number of words. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarify that it starts on the 14th, and bar the Epilogue, ends on the 14th (Vietnam and Stalsk-12); from the opera house to Tallinn is two weeks (most miss this on first watching).
 * Add a little more from Priya talks with the Protagonist - E.g. she told him about Tallinn to get back in with Sator (easy to miss this part, as it appears as a fluke), she told him the future was trying to kill us (central plot), she expected him to lose the artifact to Sator in Tallinn (to get Sator to reveal the other 8 pieces when assembled)
 * Note the Grandfather paradox point Neil makes to Kat (an important aspect of the film given what the future is doing, and also repeated by Priya).
 * Try and clarify some specific names that can cause confusion if missed in the poor sound quality.

Short Plot
As an alternative, or addition, I propose the following plot summation: Okay? --Edoe (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A nasty russian oligarch turns out to be the ultimate climate activist, while competing for screen space with executive cars from Mercedes, BMW and Audi.
 * Please be serious. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly in this summary appears like a joke to you? Climate change is the core motive of Sator's mission, and the Protagonist's counter argument is that mankind will cope with the change, and the film demonstrates the idea - "Let's continue driving fast cars and having fun." This is the underlying dramatic conflict of the story. Or what else? --Edoe (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't even a good joke. El Millo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did you expect a joke, and were disappointed? Just compare the screen time of the villain vs. the cars. --Edoe (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * what is the course of action with this kind of trolling? El Millo (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, I would start with not replying. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is massive product placement in this movie, and it denounces climate change activism. Trolling? --Edoe (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception
The Ringer here has a decent summary of how critics received the film, "Critics’ reviews for Tenet varied considerably. Raves outnumbered dismissals, but the response skewed less positive than usual for Nolan films, with many of the complaints echoing and amplifying criticisms directed at previous films. Tenet was hard to follow... It was cold... The sound mix made the dialogue hard to discern." This should be included in the first paragraph of the "Critical response" section per MOS:FILM emphasizing "detailed commentary". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Popcornfud (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mistake in Opening Paragraphs
The second paragrah states that principal photography lasted 3 months, from May to November, which is clearly 6 months... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:B902:4701:DCD3:D79D:DA25:6CF3 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy regarding the theatrical rollout
This article lack adequate coverage of its controversial and highly notable theatrical rollout in the midst of the pandemic.

Some links to use;
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/this-is-not-a-tenet-review-heres-why/2020/08/31/4d808cd6-e881-11ea-bc79-834454439a44_story.html — by Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post
 * https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/how-christopher-nolan-became-the-internet-villain/ — How Christopher Nolan Became the Internet's Villain by Darren Mooney of The Escapist
 * https://www.vulture.com/2020/09/is-tenet-a-flop-the-failure-of-nolans-movie-explained.html — The Problem With Calling Tenet a Flop by Chris Lee for Vulture

Best regards, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Possible sequel"
There's a section in this article about the possibility of a sequel because the main actor of the film says "Yes, that would be so cool! We'll see!" Without anything else, like anything by Nolan or a production company? Do I have that right? Seems to me we should get rid of the section. I don't believe this site is supposed to have a 'possible sequel' section on a movie because one of the actors says it's maybe going to happen. Can we axe the section? Or am I not understanding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.57.47 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I for one would agree with you. But I am often wrong on such matters.Robbmonster (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I second this. The sequel stuff shouldn't be here unless Nolan himself mentions the possibility. Lacon432 (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing Template Message
I think that the plot summary is neither too long nor excessively detailed. Rather the section should remain as is and the template removed. Any thoughts? Anastasios999 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PLOTBLOAT, plot summaries should generally be between 400 and 700 words long. This one currently stands at 769, so it should be trimmed just a bit. —El Millo (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOTBLOAT “ The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.” I would argue that this film fits the unconventional structure definition, what with a non-linear storyline and a complicated plot. Anastasios999 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't revert you if you remove it. Make sure to put your reasoning in the edit summary if you do it, so that any other editor knows that you removed it for that reason and not just because. I still think it would be better to keep it and see if someone can trim it to 700 words or less. —El Millo (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in any hurry to remove it. I figured I’d wait for a bit and let other people chime in with their opinion. Anastasios999 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I brought it back to 699 words, so I removed the tag Aart b (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Magical thinking
" ... filmed both backwards and forwards ..." Irrespective of the plot, in the real world we live in, ALL filming is 'forwards'; for those who don't know, a 'backwards' effect is created by playing the film in 'reverse', and this 'trick' has been around for over 100 years in cinema. Who wrote this stuff? 72.251.15.149 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * They probably mean this: for example with a scene where somewhere walks as usual, they filmed it with that person walking as usual, but also with that person walking backwards, as if time was reversed. Aart b (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This movie doesn't use reversed footage for many parts. Instead it is shot forwards with the actors acting and even speaking backwards in some cases (i.e. Sator interrogating the protagonist through the proving window). This is all explained and shown in the extra features.  Floydian  τ ¢ 00:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Title styling
I just removed the following text from the intro:
 * (formerly stylized as TENƎꞱ in the upcoming poster)

I see two concerns. First, is the styling of the name on a teaser poster significant enough for just the mention in the intro? Second, what source exists to verify the styling? —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely good to remove it, as stylization is trivial in 99% of cases. Popcornfud (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not even "stylized" but "formerly stylized" makes it even more trivial. —El Millo (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but didn't there use to be commentary on the former stylization and why it was changed? I could be wrong, but I distinctly remember reading that on this article. Why was that removed? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it had something to do with a bike brand that was also called Tenet and had a very similar stylization. I don't recall if it was included in the article or not. —El Millo (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was right. Removed with this edit, courtesy of WikiBlame. I'll see if I can find some trailer commentary so we can add it back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Goya vs. Rubens
I have seen some confusion in the plot section regarding the Goya and Rubens. In the script/screenplay, Sir Michael Crosby describes his Goya in the Harrods bag as "It's a fake, by a Spaniard named Arepo. One of two we confiscated from an embezzler in Bern". In the next line, Crosby calls the other one "A Rubens." (the script/screenplay uses the term Rubens again when Sator shows Kat he still has the painting). In the film, however, the short sentence, "A Rubens." is left out (I thought it was in it, but having rewatched the Sir Michael scene again with close captioning, the sentence is left out). Therefore, one could assume that the other painting was also a Goya? What should be done? Several sources assume both are Goyas (e.g. here, and here). 78.18.249.133 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Does a Wikipedia Plot follow the film or the script/screenplay? 78.18.249.133 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many times, if not most times, film's differ from the screenplay. I for one never doubted that it was anything other than a Goya while watching the film, and reliable sources assuming it too should take us to just stating it as a Goya, without even mentioning such a minor, trivial discrepancy with a line from the screenplay which we don't know if they even got to utter during filming. —El Millo (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. thanks. 78.18.249.133 (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Timelines graphic
There are some great graphics available online that explain the complex timeline of the film - can any of them be included in this article or does their licensing prevent that? Could even merit a seperate sub-section in the article to explain the overall timeline, which I think you need to understand to have any chance of understand the film. 78.18.254.195 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The timeline is already talked about at Tenet (film), with info backed up by reliable sources. The purpose of this article is not explaining and it's not for readers to completely the film, much less a film so logically complex as this one. The purpose of this article is giving notable, relevant, and reliably sourced information on and about the film mostly from a real-world perspective, talking about aspects of its production, release, and reception. Explaining the timeline would most likely be original research, and it would put an emphasis on the logic of the film that is inappropriate and unencyclopedic for Wikipedia. —El Millo (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There seem to be several WP:RS articles that have such graphics, so it would not be OR (i.e it would be properly sourced and verifiable). The problem with the article is that it doesn't provide the reader with some basic encyclopedic facts about the plot (i.e. that it takes place over only circa 2 weeks, and that it starts and ends on the same day).  Very obvious things have been omitted to get to a plot description that is so brief that a reader has to go elsewhere to understand what is going on in the film.  The "Thematic Analysis" section is a good addition, but still too abstract for a reader who is not familiar with the basic plot, and the timelines in particular.  Using a sourced graphic (and/or doing an updated plot summary) could be helpful. 78.18.254.195 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that explicit consensus through discussion is needed to have a plot summary that's over 700-words long, so you'd need to either start an RfC for it or try and submit a different plot summary that's more to your liking while still under 700-words long. As for graphics, I'm not sure if they'll carry copyrights because I've not seen any. If they're simple enough they could qualify for the PD-textlogo license. However, according to Image use policy, if you take the info that's there and make your own version of the graphic it can be free, but consider . —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I like the film (having previously not liked it), and like its Wikipedia article, but feel an understanding of the timeline is a critical fact needed to engage with the film (otherwise it is hard to relate to it).  What if there was a separate short subsection (either within the Plot, or before the Plot) to give context on the timeline (and perhaps include a thumbnail of the timeline graphic (if I can find one that passes licensing)?  Would that be considered acceptable - or useful - by others? 78.18.254.195 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, this article is not about engaging or relating with the film, it's about giving relevant information about it from a real-world perspective. In-universe aspects should be relegated to the Plot summary section and partially the Cast section. If the information is backed-up by several reliable sources, then you can try it and we'll see if it doesn't fall into WP:FANCRUFT territory, but I fear it probably will. —El Millo (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The critical piece of missing information is "the 14th", the date that is mentioned several times in the film, and is when the Opera, Vietnam, and Stalsk-12 happens. I think adding it might help clarify that it starts and ends on the same day (bar the epilogue). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As well as the 14th, I have made a few more small changes to clarify things (this Plot description is very tight). One final area I did not add was whether there should be a brief mention of the Protagonist being saved by the strange person (with a red trinket on his bag) at the Opera? 78.18.241.130 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I managed to fit this in (and trimmed some other text). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

El Millo, sorry for reverting you there, but this plot is too tight and missing basic facts (i.e. the 14th). The reader should not have to read the entire article (which is huge) to understand the Plot. Wikipedia allows for leniancy in Plots for complex/non-linear plots, of which this is a prime example. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For example The General in His Labyrinth and FA article, has a slightly larger Plot than this current Plot (there are several more FA Plots of similar size). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is WP:FANCRUFT. It isn't relevant for a simple understanding of the film. Its omission doesn't bar someone from understanding it. Plus, the changes you made to the Plot section added 40 words to an already too-long plot. These are WP:BOLD changes you're making, and if reverted, per WP:BRD shouldn't be reinstated. —El Millo (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whatever reason that article you cite has a larger Plot section than normally permitted doesn't automatically apply anywhere else. —El Millo (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this is you demonstrating OWNERSHIP. These are central basic facts (i.e. the story starts and ends on the 14th).  You even reverted to adding "what's happened happened" (another central point in the film - and already mentioned in the reference (and several others) beside it's insertion.  Don't try and use BRD to make unilateral reverts of several different diverse types of edits.  It only underpins a case of OWNERSHIP, and an unwillingness to engage in the specific edits (which I am happy to discuss).  78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when the guidelines specifically highlight that complex non-linear plots can be longer (as per the FA example I gave you). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't written this plot summary, so clearly I don't WP:OWN it. You need to justify that what you're trying to add is necessary for understanding the plot, and when you make edits that are contested by another user, you're supposed to discuss it, not reinstate it. WP:PLOTBLOAT exists for a reason, and if a plot summary can't be within it, it should be as close to it as possible. Complex non-linear plots can be longer if necessary, but they don't need to be longer. What you add, in my view, isn't necessary to understand it, at least to the extend that it is expected of a Wikipedia plot summary. Regarding the changes outside of the Plot section, I incorrectly assumed they were unsourced as well, that's on me and I apologize for that. —El Millo (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * El Millo, I'm now happy with your final edits (to my edits), and appreciate your response. Thanks again. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the word count even further. I think the Plot reads well now; nothing material left out.  Thanks for your corporation. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It now stands at 740, the same amount as it was before your original additions while still keeping the info. Well done. —El Millo (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for appreciating the gesture, which I wanted to make. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it down to 725 words now with more clarity on timelines and logic (ie who prompted who, which is important in this film). 78.18.249.133 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have it exactly at 700 words now. The language is tight in places, but I think it works, and the "sense" of the plot is intact? 78.18.249.133 (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done. The plot does now make even better sense and represents the key moments needed to have a core understanding of the film. I have added a few more words as the grammar and English is too Spartan in places.  However, with such a complex plot, being a few words over the 700 is acceptable. 2603:9000:BC04:1F00:D87D:15DF:A2C8:A922 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of changes
Anon IP editor: I would leave you a note on your talk page but you seem to hop IP addresses, so I'll air it out here. You seem to be protective of the contents of this page in a manner consistent with acting as if the article belongs to you. I must say you have done FANTASTIC work in making the plot more accessible (not an easy feat for a film like this), but I'm only trying to make it more so, removing clunky wording and streamlining things a bit more. You don't get to revert me just because you, and only you, think it's unnecessary or dislike my changes. Like it or not, everyone is invited to contribute and you don't get to just keep it one way because you personally prefer it. I would never dream of undoing your work; I am only trying to make the article as a whole better. I've let you do whatever you please to undo the work I, and other editors, have done so far. I only ask the same courtesy in return. (I should also point out that hopping IP addresses is one reason account creation is strongly encouraged: it makes it easier for people to reach you in editing disputes.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone can revert anyone, and the IP only reverted you once. You can't call that WP:OWN behavior. The reversion also just happened, so you don't know if it's "them and only them" that thought your edit was unnecessary. some times, a lot of times, we as editors revert others because we are trying to make the article better as a whole, the same way someone makes an edit because they think they are making the article better. That's why we have discussions at talk pages. If you make a WP:BOLD edit and are reverted, you should come here discuss in order to see if it was correctly or incorrectly reverted, if there should be a compromise or if any of the two parties are convinced that the other way is the correct one. —El Millo (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would call a vague edit summary like "Original wording was better", coming from the editor who instated said original wording in the first place, protective in an ownership way (it's actually nearly a textbook example per the policy page itself). Not explaining it or even calling it a good faith reversion reeks of that and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not about to revert anyone either, I'm just disappointed the practice here is to shut people down rather than work collaboratively with them. I already commended the editor for their work in making this plot comprehensible; I was only trying to help make it even more so. I was told it wasn't helpful without being told why. I at least explained a bit why I felt the way I put it was more informative, in this talk page section if not in an edit summary. Maybe not a more so, but certainly more valuable than simply being thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. But if people want it the way it is now, I don't care anymore. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Plot" section, of all sections in a film article, will be the most overwritten in the course of time. This was the "Plot" section a year ago. Next year it could be completely different from either version. In the scheme of things, it's not worth striving for a "perfect" version of the plot summary here. Contributions to other sections are much more enduring and worthwhile. My $0.02 about whether or not to bother with plot-related edits. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Undue prominence of fan theories
The "Hitchcockian doubles and MacGuffins" section feels uncomfortably like a list of Wikia fan theories. Unlike the usual film analysis we see in articles, fan theories tend to be individual creative exercises to fill in narrative gaps. It's true that there are sources that support the existence of various theories, yet that doesn't make any of the theories notable enough to make a case for their validity, which happens a few times in this section. I suggest reducing the section to an acknowledgement that the film has generated many competing fan theories and then possibly merging into another section; the ScreenRant article would be a good source for that. Thoughts? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The classification "Hitchcockian doubles" seems not to be backed up by RSes either, at least not extensively, as the term doesn't appear in any of the written references readily available. I agree it could be merged with another section just mentioning that there were many competing fan theories. —El Millo (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the following section, "Unreliable narrators", suffers from the same problem. It leads with clear original research and then relies on the aforementioned fan theories as evidence. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't found any mention of the term "unreliable narrator" in the written references either. —El Millo (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Identity of Neil
In the final scene, I think most people missed Kat is Neil's mother. Neil is the boy Kat is walking with. Wondering if anyone else noticed this. 2600:1700:CCD0:DFC0:60BA:B897:3C58:D17A (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is confirmed anywhere. Michael60634 (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What on earth is a Hitchcockian double?
That term needs to be defined. 135.180.193.96 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * this essay should cover your questions.$chnauzer 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , we should define it, though. It should be its own article or at least explained in brief in this article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Hitchock's article goes into further detail: "One of his constant themes were the struggle of a personality torn between "order and chaos", known as the notion of "double", which is a comparison or contrast between two characters or objects: the double representing a dark or evil side."$chnauzer 18:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That being said, how should we integrate it into the article?$chnauzer 23:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be integrated at all. Per this previous discussion, most of that stuff with regard to this article is pure WP:OR. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove parallels with 2022 war in Ukraine section
The parallels with 2022 war in Ukraine section should be removed as it's entirely irrelevant to the film. From what is written in this section, two commentators reference Tenet, and the other just mentions that Tenet put Estonia on the map. I really don't see how this section is appropriate for the article, and it's especially not appropriate for being considered to be a theme of a film that released nearly two years before the invasion. Michael60634 (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Per what I said originally, this now constitutes two editors (me and Michael) that consider this inappropriate for inclusion. A discussion can still occur for those who think it should stay in the article. —El Millo (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit you linked, I can see that the section originally claimed that it was Russians who were inverting objects. But in the film this is never stated. In fact, the only connection with Russia is that the people from the future, who are the ones inverting objects, are using a Russian oligarch who is dying from cancer to enact their plans. So I'm really not sure why what you made corrections to claimed that Russians were inverting objects. That just shows me that either the original commentator or the Wikipedia editor who added the section never watched the film. Michael60634 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Add me as a third editor who consider association with the Ukrainian war to be inappropriate. 78.16.238.146 (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just today discovered that the section was removed. (Have been busy on other Wiki articles...) I think it at least doesn't hurt to leave it in; multiple commentators I cited, found that there were connections between the invasion and "Tenet". ...Even though the film was released before the invasion, that doesn't mean that there can't be parallels made. The film "predicted" some themes around the invasion, so to speak; the real-life possibility that Putin has cancer and is trying to take it out on the world, in a sense, even if it ends the world (nuclear holocaust) is screamingly, amazingly, terrifyingly similar to how Sator acts in the film. (And yes, I did indeed see the film.) ...The fact of the Kyiv opera house being besieged by terrorists, adds another parallel. ...At least, and obviously, none of you are Russian plants (!!), thank goodness; but it really does add to the relevance and resonance of this "Tenet" article, to restore the Ukraine-parallel section. I think Putin and his cronies actually would enjoy seeing the section removed -- just as there are many discussions they would like to see silenced--, though their motivations doubtlessly aren't your own motivations. Thank you for your time and consideration, and for restoring the section, either in original form or edited, if editing has to occur. 47.149.214.237 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And to what degree of notability and importance does an event which began years after this film's release pertain any necessity to the extent of this film? I concur with Michael and El Millo on this matter. It's not encyclopedic for one to be comparing the ongoing war in Ukraine (a current event that has its own details distinct and separate from the extent of this article's coverage) to this film's events simply because they involve Ukraine and some parallels that don't actually add anything expansive to this article and boil down to nothing more than trivial bits for an online fan site. Any comparisons between Sator and other aspects of the film can be easily addressed in Themes and analysis and Critical response sections with sources from the release. The film did not "predict" anything. The creatives looked at the situations and areas they were exploring and told their own story with it. Regardless, a whole sectino dedicated to comparisons with the war I think highlights an ongoing controversial event far too much than what is the focus of this article, and brings unneeded attention to what is a rather minute coincidence that anyone could talk about, and given how the sources that were used did not appear to be the upmost reliable, I don't see any use or reason to have such a section or little bits of this comparison to be noted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Trailblazer, and I'll add that saying is very problematic as completely hypothetical, and we don't include content simply because  or because . Even if Michael is not being neutral here, I still agree with the argument he provided, and with Trailblazer now there's still a majority that considers this shouldn't be in the article and much less have its own section. —El Millo (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bad idea to remove the section, but I'm outnumbered. Still, being polite, I do see the reasoning of some other people, even if I disagree with it. As for Michael60634's neutrality, after my previous post above, I've seen that he has a six-month ban on editing the Crimea article, or something of the sort, but he didn't mention that when he proposed removing my Tenet discussion. Interesting. Also interesting to see the big Russian quote, "наша цель - счастье всего человечества", on his userpage. Too, see this discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:In_Crimea, where it looks like he gets seriously criticized ...Finally, I reserve the right to consider reinstating the section if (as is unlikely, maybe), say, there's some real-world event where a celebrity criticizes Putin and makes lengthy comparisons to Tenet. Could happen. 47.149.214.237 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add another objection, then. My biggest issue with the removed content is that it is largely WP:SYNTHESIS. For example, the Hollywood Reporter quote is about the viability of future film production in the region, and the Globe & Mail op-ed is specifically about Putin, not the invasion. Throwing all that tangential stuff together and wrapping it up under a sweeping title makes the section feel like quite the coat rack. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a great username, Orange Suede Sofa. ...I felt I had good intentions: I didn't say, or title the section, "Tenet predicted the invasion, so we must all make war on Putin now" or anything; I just listed some parallels and references. And one post I used, Google Search Or SciFi Time Travel? Why Post-War Ukraine Must Begin Now by Maryna Dadinova, "...In Christopher Nolan's latest film, TENET, nuclear weapons are not the be-all-and-end-all. Instead, the Russians discover a new type of weapon called ‘inversion’: the ability to turn back time, changing both situations and people. Russia's actions today are not too dissimilar from the events of the sci-fi film, where the state stubbornly and publicly attempts to invert everything: logic (denying its inhumane attacks on Ukrainian civilians), progress (cutting itself off from Western countries and businesses), and — most importantly — time!", seems to reference Tenet pretty strongly, including in the article title ("SciFi Time Travel"). But I know people's mileage varies. Thanks for commenting. 47.149.214.237 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the (now expired) TBAN, you'd realize that the ban was for edit warring and mislabeling other editors' edits, actions which I am not proud of and have moved on from. Neither of these things implies any pro-Russia bias as you seem to be implying. As for the Russian language quote on my userpage, that's from a TV miniseries, and can specifically be found in Episode 4 on a banner attached to a building. It says "Our goal is the happiness of all mankind." I liked how it sounded, so I added it to my userpage, among other places. Implying that someone is biased in a war because they used a language somewhere is, quite frankly, completely idiotic. There's no other way of putting it. The current president of Ukraine speaks Russian as his native language, in addition to what I assume is most of the Ukrainian government. Does that make them biased against themselves? There's zero logic in your statement. For transparency, I do have an interest in the Cold War era and former Soviet Union countries, but to put it very simply, I have no affinity for either side. I don't care who gets obliterated. It's not my war. I have other things in my life to worry about, rather than a territorial dispute on the other side of the world from me.
 * But this is all avoiding the main point here. What does the invasion of Ukraine have to do with a sci-fi movie about the people of the future trying to reverse climate change through the reversal of time? I can't think of any relation other than the single article you referenced. From my point of view, it is entirely unnecessary to shoehorn the war in Ukraine into an article about a completely unrelated science fiction movie, and this seems to be the consensus among other editors.
 * In the future, if you are going to make disparaging accusations about me, it would be appreciated if you would at least have the courtesy to ping me so I have the chance to reply. michael60634 / talk / contributions 07:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Le KUMU, musée dart estonien (Tallinn) (7637589306).jpg