Talk:The Girl with All the Gifts (film)

Mysterious Fungal Disease
"In the near future, humanity has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease..." Not so mysterious: Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis. Glen Close's character from the movie stated the name of the fungus. Should I elaborate, or leave as is? Caleb01 09:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Plot synopsis?
I have to ask: why is there a plot synopsis when this apparently isn't going to be released until next year? Is the synopsis taken from the book? If so, then this needs to be removed because there could be some significant plot differences between the book and the film. A great example of this is Beautiful Creatures, which differed greatly from the books. To be on the safe side I'm going to nuke the plot synopsis and write something based on the film summary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do note that there is a source that claims that the movie will be the same, but this was published in 2014 and a lot can change over time so just to be on the safe side no full plot synopsis should be added until the film has released. You can't predict what Warner Bros. might want to change prior to its official release and unless Carey has a very, very strong contract saying that there can be no changes without his permission (something that E. L. James was supposed to have insisted upon for the FSoG adaptation), we have to assume that changes can happen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Title?
IMDB lists the movie title as "The Girl with all the Gifts". "She who brings gifts" is a horrible title, no idea why they wanted to change it. I guess it could be seen as misleading. Gymnophoria (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's explained in the film.--217.248.2.202 (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing?
Conveniently missing from this section and yet mentioned in the same references is the fact that the main character was a white girl in the book and yet was cast as a black girl in the movie. I fail to see how any claim of "whitewashing" applies here. Two characters simply had their races reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.19.209 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Melanie is the main character in the book and clearly described as fair with blonde hair. "Her name is Melanie. It means “the black girl”, from an ancient Greek word, but her skin is actually very fair so she thinks maybe it’s not such a good name for her", "skin as white as snow". In the movie the character is played by a black girl. This is surely just as controversial or voids the controversy. Is there a more correct and accurate heading? Changes to the book? Whitewashing and blackwashing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.130.46 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the preceeding, but more importantly there are no sources of sufficient quality to warrant the section. I therefore removed it.--217.248.2.202 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the quotes from the book made the section OR. We are not here to do literary criticism.-217.248.2.202 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly is taking quotes from a book original research? Using the information in the book to confirm claims that were made about casting or other issues between the written and visual versions seems to be relatively sound referencing. Would you claim that you cant use quotes from Harry Potter books that say Harry is male as it would be OR?
 * Also the policy is WP:BRD not Bold revert revert again and then start shouting at the talk page of whoever reverted you. Amortias (T)(C) 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quotes from the book do nothing to establish any kind of controversy. To get one from the other is OR. The discussion on whether or not whitewashing took place should not happen on WP.
 * If there ever would be a controversy in the press or elsewhere on whether or not Harry is male, then yes, book quotes still would't belong here, only pointers to the debate in other media.
 * I shouted because you quite obviously were not aware of the talk page. Thanks for joining in!-217.248.2.202 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of talk pages.
 * You didn't respond to my notification about WP:BRD, how are you planning on dealing with that.
 * The information shown in the books goes against what was cast. If this is controversial or not isn't our job to decide. Stating the facts, the character is the book was XYZ, however in the film they were cast as ABC. Is something that we would consider including. I still cant see how stating a comparison between two things could be OR. At most the section needs rewording not removal. Amortias (T)(C) 12:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So state the facts. One fact (or is it a quote?) from WP:OR: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * The section in question contained much more than those straightforward statements, as evidence by its title. Anyhing more than a short information is not allowed under WP:OR.
 * The section was also heavily biased, as it did not even mention that the main protagonist was switched from light skinned to dark skinned.
 * Your claim that BRD is policy is false. In this case, the article contained badly sourced, OR material, there is simply no reason to keep it in. Might I also remind you that you've only entered the discussion because I "shouted" at you. --217.248.2.202 (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed this section because of poor sources. The listed sources are from blogs (a couple of them were just personnel blogs). Somebody's individual opinion does not make this a controversy. If it truly is a controversy, there should be plenty of secondary sources, yet I find none from major media. In addition, the little girl in the book is white, in the movie, she's black. The two characters race is flip flopped between the movie and the novel. Is that whitewashing as well? This section should remain out of the article until reliable sources are presented that state this as an actual controversy. Dkspartan1835 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think there should be a controversy about this -- I found it very strange to be reading a book which makes much of the teacher having beautiful dark skin and the girl having very pale white skin, which book also had the exact opposite on the front cover for profit reasons -- but I agree with Dkspartan1835, the Wikipedia article should only mention such a controversy if it is discussed in detail in reliable sources.


 * As for having a separate section for it, then no, that would require a far more significant coverage of the currently non-existent controversy, in reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also concur that there should only content about the casting based on coverage from reliable third-party sources. Doing a quick search engine test, I am not seeing any coverage about a controversy. Apparently there was a Reddit Q&A that Tor has summarized here that has the author saying the following, "We were committed to having as diverse and inclusive a line-up as we could across the board, but we didn’t ring-fence any one role. The casting process, in other words, was as neutral as we could make it, but with the explicit aim of ending up with a racially diverse line-up. So Miss Justineau ended up being played by Gemma Arterton, who of course is white, but Melanie and Gallagher, who are white in the book, are played by Sennia Nanua and Fisayo Akinade. And Dillon, whose ethnicity is never given in the book, is played by Antony Welsh." That could go in the "Production" section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)