Talk:Twist ending/Archive 1

Alejandro Amenabar
Perhaps the spanish film director and guionist (and composser...) Alejandro Amenabar should be included in the list of authors.

He has filmed only 4 films, but two of them have a twist ending. I am refering to "Abre los ojos" (A remake with Tomo Cruise called "Vanille Sky" was done), and "The Others" (In pre-production when The Six Sense appeared).

Citizen Kane
I don't agree with the appearance of Citizen Kane in the list. It's unpredictable, but not exactly surprising, and it doesn't come out of nowhere. Foolish Mortal 22:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It does seem to meet the definition in the article. A twist ending should surprise, but should not come out of nowhere. A good plot twist should make sense: in retrospect.--RLent 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Trick Ending"
I forgot about this - I proposed the merger of trick ending and this article a long time ago. The only thing that isn't covered in this article is the actual phrase "trick ending." Does anyone actually use this phrase? If it's common, it should be mentioned in this article; however, I've never heard of it. I'm going to go ahead just make trick ending a redirect to this page and leave it at that. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 04:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the concept of trick ending to the main concept as it is merely the same topic and usually those two are combined together. Good job redirecting trick ending to here. Pagliaccimontague - 10:22pm June 24th 2007

Video Game Twist Endings
I'm beggining to become a little concerned that fans of certain video games might be adding them to the Video Game list without good reason. A few games that I can comment on: Dues Ex may be one of my favorite games, and it's certainly notable for it's various twists, but it does not have a twist ending. There is no major suprise once you enter the last level, Area 51. Grand Theft Auto is another series I like, but as I know Vice City is the only one with an ending that might be considered a twist (Lance's Betrayal). Halo is a series with no twist endings that I can think of, this at least holds true with the second game. The only Metal Gear with a clear-cut ending that fits the articles description of a twist ending is Snake Eater. MGS2 has a twist close enough to the end that it's arguable, but iffy. Star Wars; Knights of the Old Republic has one of my favorite game twists, but it happens a long time before the ending. There is also alot of point and click adventures in the list. While there probably should be a significant amount, I can't help but think that more than a few of these might not actually have twist endings. Can anyone who has played these games please comment? --GYC

Deus Ex does not have a twist ending at all. Nor does FF7, or many of the other games In fact, the entire section is of questionable credibility and should be entirely removed, because whoever wrote it has no idea what a 'twist ending' actually is.71.194.162.220 03:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a twist ending in Final Fantasy 7. You find out at the end that the planet itself fights off Meteor, and that fighting Sephiroth and all that was (possibly) useless. Though I do agree with you. I think this article has become too much about listing things with twist endings, rather than explaining what the twist ending is. --GYC
 * Not quite - the planet indeed does save everyone from meteor (Aeris in fact causes the Lifestream to bubble up and do the job (as confirmed in FF VII: AC)) but she was prevented from working by the power of Sephiroth - that's why the power does not start to work until after you have defeated him for the last time. Divinedegenerate 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a Twist ending. The plan was articulated within the game.  Furthermore, a twist ending is meant to change the perception of what occurs during the game, Final Fantasy VII does not.  It does not belong in this section.--208.145.126.6 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Connotations"
''You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'' The word "Connotations" as I understand it means a set of implied associations with a word. For example the word "whore" has dirty and negative connotations, whereas the word "prostitute" is more neutral, and the term "escort" has almost positive connotations. To use the dictionary example, the word "Hollywood" has strong connotations of stars and movie studios. I'm not sure what word would be better suited, perhaps "potential pitfalls" or something along those lines, and it's a subtle error, but it kind of bothers me. I'll fix it when I think of a better word, unless somebody else does before me. --TexasDex 04:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I did a complete overhaul of this article, adding in a section for plot devices used, expaning information for each section, adding many more examples, and more. --Schwenkstar May 09th, 2006


 * Added in photographs as well that matches the content discussed in the article. --Schwenkstar May 16th, 2006


 * If you add an example, please keep it ALPHABETICAL! Also, please keep spoilers to a minimum! --Schwenkstar May 17th, 2006


 * Added many references and citations to the article to make it more comprehensive as well as to make the article compliant with the Wikipedia style guidelines. See Citing sources and Verifiability for further information. -- Schwenkstar June 29th, 2006

List of films with a twist ending
The listing of film examples have become unnecessary for this article. The reason is because the wikipedia article List of films with a twist ending gives a far more comprehensive representation of films using this narrative device. If you feel there is a particular film's twist ending that has had a great influence on the whole film medium, please add to the Influential films section of the article and explain it's reason for being so influential. --Schwenkstar June 16th, 2006

Mystery genre conventions?
In the Genre Conventions: Mystery Genre section, all four of the points seem questionable to me, but the last two, dealing with film, are particularly troublesome because they imply that they apply to all films:


 * In film, the killer is never an unknown actor but always a recognizable face or named actor.

It seems to me that this can't be the case for all mystery movies, since not all movies feature well-known actors. Trivially, there are cases where directors or producers will deliberately "cast unknowns" for effect. And does this really have much to do with twist endings, as such?


 * In film, if the camera lingers on an object for an unnecessary length of time, then that object is a vital clue and will play an important part in the story's revelation (see flashing arrow). This method is also present in literature, only that an object is described for a longer duration, but it is usually harder to notice.

Does this necessarily have anything to do with twist endings, either?

—Eric S. Smith 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. I have removed the list of mystery guidelines since it is essentially a repeat of what is said on the detective fiction wikipedia article. Also, I clarified the analysis of the mystery conventions and how they work in order to create and/or compromise the twist ending device. - Schwenkstar 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that someone's put those overly-broad claims about film back in again. I've tagged them for unsourcedness. —Eric S. Smith 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:21, 3 July 2006
In regards to this revision, I did a lot of cleaning up and out. I converted a lot of unnecessary bullet points into paragraphs, removed a lot of boldfacing, and removed authors' pictures (since these articles have their own articles where the picture lives).

The biggest removal involved the interviews. Inclusion of them verbatim like that is probably a copyright violation, and even if that's not the case, being presented as they were is still unencyclopedic. So I pulled them entirely.

I left the copyedit tag in place, since the article still needs a lot of work. The writing is admittedly kind of boring. There are a number of places where several paragraphs in a row all start the same way and follow the same format. That makes for uninteresting reading. I also consider a number of areas ripe for shortening, like in the example sections and author lists. I think it drags the article.

So that's how I see it. Basically, this article still needs major revisions and needs to be condensed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--Nycteacher 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)==Revision as of August 6, 2006 ==

I copyedited the first section (Common Literary Devices). I generally streamlined the language, fixed typos and grammatical/syntax problems, and so on. I agree with Schuminweb that starting the paragraphs the same way is boring. I noticed that, but wanted to get through the more straightforward copyediting problems first. I may go back and work on varying the paragraph starters.--Nycteacher 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the first section to see what I could do to vary the paragraph starters and make the writing a bit more interesting. First, I changed the heading "Mechanics" to "Mechanics of the Twist Ending." I did that to make it clear that all the devices that followed were devices that are used to create twist endings; this way it wouldn't have to be repeated in every single device description that this device created twist endings. I deleted "Common" in "Common Literary Devices"; I thought it was understood that these are common literary devices; otherwise, why would they be included?

After that, I rewrote most of the device descriptions to delete repeating phraseology like "this literary device" or "this device works in twist endings by ..." and suchlike.

I had a little trouble with the timestamp/signature at the end. Am I correct in thinking that we are not supposed to put our sigs after edits; only on talk pages (like this one)?

Anyway, just let me know, anyone, if there are questions or concerns.

I retitled "Common Story Elements" to "Narrative Elements" and substantially copyedited/rewrote the definitions for each element. There was a lot of redundant, repetitive language; I tried to tighten it up and make it more concise.

The above comment is mine, nycteacher. I wasn't signed in before when I wrote that. Hopefully my name and the date stamp will appear this time.--Nycteacher 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay: I just finished a fairly major reorganization/editing. I changed the heading "Negative Connotations" to "Caveats." This is a section of cautions, or warnings, about possible problems with using twist endings. It has nothing to do with connotations, negative or positive. I could have called it "Problems with Twist Endings" or something else similar, but I settled on "Caveats."

Next, I reorganized the heads and weighted them differently. I felt that Genre, Film, Music, Television, etc., should all be separate A-level categories. I put Genre as a B-heading under the new A-heading The Twist Ending in Fiction, to allow for separate categories on literature, mass market, or whatever. Also, I think there should be a sub-category under Genre for thrillers.

Under "The Twist Ending in Music," I added "The Pina Colada Song" by Rupert Holmes. That definitely has a twist ending.

I don't think I'm going to tackle the length issue. I'll let somebody else take that on.--Nycteacher 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Improving length of article
It's rare that I say this, but this article is indeed too long. As it stands now:
 * "Mechanics of the Twist Ending"  ~ 27%
 * "The Twist Ending in Fiction"    ~ 19%
 * "The Twist Ending in Film"       ~ 17%
 * "The Twist Ending in Television" ~  5%
 * "The Twist Ending in Video Games" ~ 10%
 * "The Twist Ending in Comic Books" ~ 7.5%
 * "The Twist Ending in Anime"      ~  8.5%
 * "The Twist Ending in Music"      ~  6.5%

One idea is to combine "Film", "Television", and "Anime" and "Fiction" and "Comic Books" into two separate categories, but that leaves "Video Games" and "Music" as the odd (and short) ones out. Another is to break off all of them (i.e. things other than "Mechanics") into individual categories. Still another idea is to them off into one big category, at about 41 kb. Someone else might come along with a better solution, but the issue does need to be addressed. 24.126.199.129 09:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is way too long. Why does anime need it's own section?? It's an awfully esoteric genre that, while increasing in popularity, still only appeals to relatively few cult fans. If we include anime, why not include Bollywood movies? Why not include traditional fairy tales? Why not include twist endings in theater? The point of the article on twist endings should be to describe the concept and illustrate a few respresentative twist-endings that have widespread popularity across the whole world - ie. the twist ending in "Psycho" or some other ubiquituous work of literature, not a list of video games and anime titles many of which don't even seem to fit the "twist ending" category.
 * Yes please. I trimmed cold open a month or two ago for much the same reason. Iconic examples are better than a laundry list, though it will take some maintaining. -- nae'blis 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, this article is definitely too long. I did a major revision some time ago on an overly long article (Stock character) by splitting the examples up into lists, and it seemed to work well. I think I could do the same for this article, and edit out the more obscure references. Any suggestions on how to best edit this?Breed Zona 18:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Diablo II
Diablo II: when in Act I Maurius is visited by Tyryael who is thought to be Diablo, but is later revealed to be an archangel was actually trying to stop Diablo.-This statements is completly wrong.The real twist ending of Diablo II is that during the whole game Maurius is telling to Tyrael the story of how Diablo escaped and freed is brother.At the end it's revealed that its not tyreal who is his talking to but Ball(diablo brother) and he tricked him into giving him his soulstone.
 * That was a great ending... and it's Baal.

-G

From the way this is worded, it sounds like Tyrael is actually Baal throughout the game, rather then just in the context of the cut scenes associated with Marius. Should we change the wording? Avatarian86 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In Act I Marius is visited by the archangel Tyrael, but at the end of the game "Tyrael" is revealed to actually be Baal.

Huh?
What does "in medias res" have to do with twist endings?
 * As the article itself (at least tries to) explain(s), because we don't always know what happened before the opening events, the twist might be the revelation of this. Still, perhaps that part should be merged into the section on flashbacks, I don't know. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
The kid 666 has recently voiced opposition to the spoilers contained in the article. After removing them several times, and my requests to leave them in, as they are used to illustrate the technique of a "twist ending", we have come to an agreement that will hopefully help anyone else with the same concerns. I have added the tag to the sections that reveal plot details, allowing those reading to realize that it may reveal specific endings. I hope this is helpful. Ariel ♥ Gold 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your motives, but obviously an article discussing twist endings will give examples of twist endings. It isn't necessary or desirable to signal this fact within the article because it disrupts the flow of reading and anybody stupid enough to fail to realise that this article discusses twist endings will obviously be too stupid to understand the spoiler warnings. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do as you see fit, but I don't think resorting to terms like "stupid" is really necessary, is it? [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]] the is extremely unobtrusive, and seemed to me to be a good compromise, rather than reporting the above user for continued removal of the information. Ariel ♥  Gold 12:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

who deleted the spoiler warnings? i want some damn answers now you imbeciles

The kid 666 13:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was a kid, I was taught to say "please". -- Hoary 13:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As Tony Sidaway said, anyone reading an article on twist endings is going to expect that it will reveal some twist endings. If they were truly worried about avoiding all spoilers they simply wouldn't read the article. So there's no need for an extra spoiler warning tag. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Someone might want to read about the terminology and types of twist endings without reading a spoiler.  It's unfair to assume otherwise.  Obviously there are people requesting a notice of spoilers, so the spoiler tag seems to be a fair, unobtrusive compromise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.58.79 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Twist film endings
Am I the only one who thinks the twist film endings section has gotten too long? A lot of them don't even qualify as twist endings. It's also incredibly U.S.-centric; some of them are remakes of foreign films. I'm gonna remove some of the ones I think are weak; if anyone has a problem, speak on it. Those are The Village, Unbreakable, Memento, The Ring, Saw II and III, Dead Silence, Skeleton Key, I Know Who Killed Me and Smokin' Aces. --YellowTapedR 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. And although you might think this a little draconian I've also temporarily removed the whole "TV, Cinema, video games" thing because they've become magnets for a certain kind of wikipedia-editing, which I might call "listism", which seems to go something like: "I can make this article better by writing about my favorite example of this phenomenon."  In small doses this is great, because if we can use one or two examples to illustrate a theme it improves the impact of the article by giving a point we can relate to. In Wikipedia-sized doses, however, we end up with several long paragraphs containing redundant examples.


 * So please don't take my (temporary) removal of these sections as a signal that we shouldn't have such sections. Rather, I think we should probably have a discussion about how many examples to use.


 * Please feel free to revert any or all of my edits. My feeling is that I think we should hold a discussion and make sure we think this is what we want to do. --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not draconian. It looks much better now. --YellowTapedR 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rashomon effect
The films Basic and Hero were most definitely more of an unreliable narrator twist seeing as they were about the teller of the story deliberately being deceiving. IRMacGuyver 03:24, 2 October 2007(UTC)

Dead links
The references "The Rashomon Effect. Combining Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches in the Analysis of Contested Events - Harvard University" (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wroth/RashomonEffect.pdf) and "Analysis of The Tenant" (http://www.wehateyouandyourhorrendoustasteineverything.com/cinema/features/tenant.php) show up a 404 error. I'm really very new to wiki editing, so I'm just gonna toss this out for someone who knows what they are doing ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.213.253 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)