Talk:Mr. Nobody (film)/Archive 1

Plot Issue? Suicide in the Tub

In the Jeanne universe, from my understanding I thought that the murder in the bathtub was planned by Nemo and so was a suicide. But it was an elaborate preparation and then while he was approaching the driver he was deciding on whether or not to follow through with it, which is why he flipped the coin.

Essentially he was looking for ways to commit suicide, which is what happened when he flipped the coin on the train tracks but he got No, so stepped off. Anyway, the plot description makes it sound like an accident, but it's hard to tell if that is actually the case.

Citations for use

Dormael's 'Nobody' bows at Venice at Variety. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something interesting: So "Nemo" may have its etymology from the Greek "onoma" = name? Οὖτις ἐμοί γ' ὄνομα Oûtis emoí g' ónoma. "My name is Nobody". Odysseus to Polyphemus when asked what his name was. (Homer, Odyssey, ix, 366).1.120.149.202 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

In the scene where Elise dies in an explosion there is a musical piece from Henryk Górecki, as I recall it is from Symphony No. 3. Also the article soundtrack list is way too short, there was a lot of different music pieces used during the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.216.19 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

I am copyediting the plot section, the translation from Russian was probably made by a machine, and was very broken. I am not a native speaker myself, hence I would like for someone else to take a look at the article and rephrase some clumsy sentences. Also, I think we can remove the "work in progress translation" template, the user who put the tag hasn't contributed in four days, and I think it is not work in progress anymore. I will remove it and put the "contains a translation from..." template on the talk page. Zidanie5 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section 1.3.2 needs a major rewrite, I think it may be also wrong plot-wise: the Mars storyline coincides with paralysed Nemo's story, and furthermore I think the ship blows up on its way back from Mars. Zidanie5 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like for someone to decide which is the right term to use both for the "bifurcations" of the story, and the different potential lives. I went with "storyline" so far, but it doesn't convince me. Zidanie5 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

This article laboriously presents the movie under the best possible light, glossing over the fact that it was a total box office disaster with a decidedly mixed critical reception. Reviews were hardly "mostly positive". For example, many major reviewers in France panned the movie (Le Monde, Liberation, Inrockuptibles, Cahiers du Cinema, ...). A more balanced article would present both sides of the story. Clearly some people liked the movie, but many didn't. The enormous box office and financial failure of the movie is surely noteworthy. And no, the movie is probably not a "cult movie", even if some blog said it was, and the people behind the movie no doubt wish it was. I don't have the time or the patience to make this article better, but it needs help. --Kai Carver (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag since you have no source that supports your statements (WP:NOR). This article doesn't present the movie under the best possible light. There are few informations about its box office performance, and these few informations (Belgian and French box office) are in the article. There isn't any source which indicates the film's worldwide gross and which states that it was a total financial disaster. Most of the publications, including Rotten Tomatoes, state that it received mostly favorable reviews from film critics. Its cult movie status is sourced by several reliable sources, including an Empire magazine article (and some time ago there was a similar discussion). Every single statement in this article is sourced by a reliable source and it is written under a neutral point of view.--Earthh (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthh. I'm afraid we have a disagreement here!

- Please note the part of the "neutrality disputed" tag that says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved".

- I don't need a source to support my statement about the quality of a Wikipedia article. That's why we have talk pages and discussion.

Here are some more details to support my point:

- "It has received high praise from film critics" is misleading at best: it was hardly reviewed at all by major critics in North America, and where it was reviewed widely, in France, it was panned by many major reviewers: [1]

- "named by many one of the best science fiction films of the 21st century": a laughable statement -- the only evidence for this is somebody's film blog. This is not a sufficient source.

- "Mr. Nobody has become a cult film": again, the only listed source for this is somebody's film blog. (and another film blog which I see you just added).

Three misleading statements in one paragraph at the head of the article. At the same time there is no mention of the poor reception of the movie and of its catastrophic box office failure [2][3]. Don't you think this suggests the movie is being presented in an excessively positive light, and that important information is being omitted or severely under-emphasized? I think it's great that some people like this movie, but it should be presented in a neutral and factual way here. --Kai Carver (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it wrong, seriously. Here the neutrality is disputed because you claim that this article is biased. As I said before, to demonstrate that you're statements about the film (not the article) are right, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

"It has received high praise from film critics". The positive critical reception is sourced. If French critics were more critical, you can add it with a reliable source, but this doesn't mean that the film's general reception was mixed (and in the article there is already written that some were more critical about the film). For example in Belgium the film was well-received both critically and commercially ([4]). Most of the reviews used in the article is from a North American major critic (The Globe and Mail, Variety, Exclaim!).
"named by many one of the best science fiction films of the 21st century". Actually, you're statement is laughable. This is sourced by multiple sources, including Twitch Film (not somebody's film blog).
"Mr. Nobody has become a cult film". There are two different sources cited: one is an Empire magazine article and the other is from a website founded by award-winning British music editor and journalist Darren Howells.

Once again, the few data about the film's performance at the box office are in the article (if you read here, you can see the box office performance of Belgium and France). Box Office Mojo is already cited in the article but it doesn't indicate the film's worldwide gross (there aren't the box office performances of most of the countries in which the film was released). Explain why Empire, Twitch Film and Variety are unreliable sources and why this blog is reliable. It's hilarious, don't you think? Also, it only says that the opening weekend in France was disappointing, so it can't be used to indicate the worldwide gross of the film (in addiction the article is dated 15 January 2010 and at that time the film was released only in Belgium and France). So no, I don't think the movie is being presented in an excessively positive light. I'm going to add the disappointing gross of the opening weekend and the mixed reception in France since I found this source. Then I'll remove the tag and please, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Earthh (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am not going to argue this any further, as I don't think I will convince you that the article is biased, and you obviously care more about this than I do. You appear to really think that it's a good idea for this article to make it appear as if the movie was a great critical and commercial success... Amazing. I'll just note one more quote that seems grossly misleading: "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year". Many critics. Frequently considered. Wow. Have fun with your fantasy world article, I won't be "disrupting Wikipedia" with this article any longer. --Kai Carver (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not to convince me, here is written what reliable sources say. I don't think this is a good idea, the article is written under the most neutral point of view. Where do you read that the film was a commercial success? As I already said to you (for the third time now) you need sources which support what you are saying. This isn't my fantasy world article and you are doing personal attacks. Seriously, every single statement in the article is sourced, there is the Belgian box office, the French disappointing box office, the French mixed reception, and you're still here claiming something that is only in your mind.--Earthh (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Cahiers du Cinéma and Le Nouvel Observateur are not reliable sources, according to you? The article is remarkably biased, and you are trying to preserve that bias, by repeatedly undoing my edit which provides some balance by quoting from two negative reviews. You quote numerous positive reviews but not a single negative review, and yet you keep on denying that the article is biased.

According to your own section "Theatrical run", the film only got a wide theatrical release in two countries, Belgium and France. So it is absurd to quote from several English language blogs but not from a single French review, considering the film got released in France but not in any anglophone country. Also, the fact that probably the most prestigious film journal in the world, Cahiers du Cinéma, gave this ambitious film only one star is extremely notable, so not mentioning such a notable fact is in itself biased.

Finally, in your edit summaries, you repeatedly state that I violate WP:WORLDVIEW. I really can't understand how you come to that conclusion, since I am American and yet bring in non-English language reviews, whereas you quote exclusively English language reviews, from sources much less respected and well known than the ones I quote. – Herzen (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that section is not written "North American critical reception" or "British critical reception", and I didn't quote only positive reviews (Variety did not give the film a positive review). You can quote some French reviews (Cahiers du Cinéma and Le Nouvel Observateur are important source, I have never said that they are not reliable) but cannot write "French critical reception" because that discriminates against other population. Moreover, you cannot add quotes referenced by an aggregator, you should use as a source the direct review of that magazine or newspaper.--Earthh (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does mentioning thee French critical reception "discriminate" against other "population"? You have already represented non-French reviewers.

Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say I have to quote reviews directly? Are you suggesting that Allocine is not a reliable source? – Herzen (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the direct link to the review because Allociné has its own rating system. However, I removed a non-notable English review and I added the summary of Rotten Tomatoes and Allociné, quoting two French reviewers.--Earthh (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mr. Nobody is also a German film, the official press release says "co-production between France, Germany, Canada and Belgium".--Earthh (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added that information. Please don't remove it again.--Earthh (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mr. Nobody (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article

Review discussion

This looks good overall. A few small items:

The second sentence under "visual effects" reads "having delivered 121 digital visual effects shots for Mr. Nobody." Similar for the last sentence ini that paragraph/section. Could you clarify what you mean by "digital visual effects shot" as an entity.North8000 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third sentence in the same section appears to have a "singular vs. plural" grammar error. I would have fixed it but did not know which way to go, not knowing the material behind it. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A visual effects shot is the single framing produced for a film. It's the technical term used by visual effects companies. Fixed the grammar.--Earthh (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently resolved. Extra clarification for those of us without your film expertise would be even better, but this is sufficiently resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence under "Theatrical run"

Could you clarify in the article what: "An earlier, longer, work-in-progress version of the film was rejected for competition by Cannes," means?

Could you clarify in the article what: "which offered that cut of Mr. Nobody a out-of-competition berth." means?

North8000 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified Cannes Film Festival, I thought it was implied..--Earthh (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the area in question. I think that clarifying it with respect to these questions would do it. Was it just the earlier version hat was rejected, i.e. was a later version accepted? What does an "out of competition berth" mean? And was that "reduced place" just for the earlier version and, if so, what about the "final" version at Cannes?

The film was planned to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2009. That was an earlier version of the film, and the festival offered just a screening among the films out of competition, i.e. it was not nominated for the festival's highest prize, the Palme d'Or. The producers refused that and that version of the film was not shown at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. The "final" version, finished some months later, premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September 2009.--Earthh (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about what isn't covered here. For example, under theatrical run, it describes it's run in Belgium and France. Did it run elsewhere? And, if not, I would think that saying that it ran only in Belgium and France is the gorilla-in-the-living room missing info/summary. The same for it's overall gross receipts, and any discussion about it's commercial success or non-success. Also in the critical reception, about 95% of the material is reviews lauding the moving, and 5% was one softball critique. Ideally there would be a source that summarizes the critical reception, if available. If not, then a good representative cross section would be in order. Is what's in there representative? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similiar discussion some time ago. To date the worldwide gross of the film is not available. Box office performances of most of the countries in which the film was released are not available (Box Office Mojo is cited in the article but has very little data). The film run elsewhere ([5]), but since it is not available a worldwide gross, I described just the domestic box office (Belgium and France). The film was extremely successful in Belgium (and was one of the highest-grossing Belgian films of 2010 [6]) but had a disappointing revenue in France due to the mixed response from French critics. These little available informations are in the article. For the critical reception, the film has received high praise from film critics. During its premiere at the Venice Film Festival, it was one of the most acclaimed film screened at the festival. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 67% based on reviews from six critics, and reports a rating average of 7.9 out of 10. Most of the reviews used in the article are from major North American publications. What should I do?--Earthh (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article follows reasonably-available sources and tries to summarize and give the right weight to what they say, then I think we're cool. If an article tended to leave things out and emphasize others all in a certain POV direction, then there would be an issue. I was mostly working to reassure myself that its not the latter; and not being knowledgeable in this field makes that slower going. I was approaching it both through some initial thoughts / questions here as well as planning a closer look. Just trying to do my "job" properly. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly wrote the article and I can reassure you that it is neutral and represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, otherwise I would not have nominated it for the good articles. If you need more clarification I'm here :) Earthh (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to figure that we're good there. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA criteria checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria based on available sources. Notably there is no discussion or summary of its degree of overall commercial success (or lack thereof) but it appears that this is due to the lack of available coverage in sources of that aspect. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria; See note under "Broad in its coverage." North8000 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 5 images; the 2 non-free images have article-specific rationales. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes Good Article. Congratulations on creating an excellent article. I will implement the details. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Earthh (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed Good Article

(I am "duplicating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded.)

This article has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! Sincerely, North8000, Reviewer. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again :) Earthh (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing plot line

Finishing the plot section by the line "with the realization that his younger self has finally found his one true love and life" seems like a very bad idea to me as, from what I took fromt he film, it completely goes against what the film was about. There is no 'one true love' or 'one true life'. MatrixM (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Kieślowski's Blind Chance

This movie is a remake of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Chance

Why is this nowhere mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.237.126 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mr. Nobody (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017144132/http://www.moniteurdufilm.be/?article=69&PHPSESSID=d0636412b8c21fa5e4cc15a80ae5ad53 to http://www.moniteurdufilm.be/?article=69&PHPSESSID=d0636412b8c21fa5e4cc15a80ae5ad53

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mr. Nobody (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325071515/http://www.empireonline.com/features/damonwise/post.asp?id=684 to http://www.empireonline.com/features/damonwise/Post.asp?id=684

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mr. Nobody (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mr. Nobody (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mr. Nobody (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]