Talk:Fight Club/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Abseiling should definitely be wikified, but none of the articles on climbing seem to mention it yet. Is the subject rich enough to justify its own article?

Contents

Redirection

Apologies if the redirection I've implemented confuses people. We now have four articles describing Fight Club and its spin-offs (with a potential fifth for the ballet), so I felt that the traditional disambiguation approach on wikipedia was appropriate. In addition, the existing method favoured the book article over the others - this is arguable, as the film is more popular. The current approach does not favour any of the four articles. -- Jon Dowland 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sic

Is there any reason that the sic has been left in the last 20 versions of the page? 'Coz if not, I'ma clean it up sometime next week, yo.

XOXOXO,

Carl

The sic is in there because even though they are 2 rules, they are the same rule. Rule #1 about Fight Club is "You do not talk about Fight Club." Rule #2 about Fight Club is "You do not talk about Fight Club." Thus, the sic makes sense, since they are supposed to be refered to as the first 2 rules, not just one, despite being exactly the same. -- LGagnon

Yeah, I suspected as much at first, but then I noticed that it says, "such as first two..." which should be, "such as the first two..." and thought that might be the cause of the sic. -- Carl

The line "His name is Robert Paulson!" doesn't seem to be put in the article well. It looks a bit out of place and unprofessionally thrown in there. I think it should just be removed, and maybe put in the article for Fight Club at Wikiquote instead. -- LGagnon

I've just moved it to Wikiquote. -- LGagnon

Condo

Reverted "apartment" back to "condo" as condo was the accurate term. Not trying to be overly pedantic but it is even quoted as such in the movie and mentioned as such in the book:


Look, nobody takes this more seriously than me. That condo was my life, okay? I loved every stick of furniture in that place. That was not just a bunch of stuff that got destroyed, it was ME! (voice-over) I'd like to thank the Academy...

Lestatdelc 17:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I changed it's because I thought condo=whole building, apartment=just the rooms owned by someone in condo. I agree with your revert tho, the way it's used in the quote should take precedence. Should we change it to condo to prevent unecessary redirects? - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t01:00z

Not sure the recent edit changing Tyler from "Anarchist" to "Nihilist" is accurate. Tyler certainly does have a ethos and creed, where as a nihilist does not. His creed can certainly be said to be destruction of the current culture and certainly retrograde in many respects, seeking to return to a simpler subsistence level of existence (i.e. hunter/gatherer) but he definitely has an established ethos and world-view. It is simply contrary to much of modern society. I posit that the edit should be reverted back to anarchist. Lestatdelc 17:56, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Reader's Digest, Jack/Joe

Hey, a few years ago I was reading a really old Reader's Digest and I swear I actually read an article written first person from an organ's point of view. (I don't remember which.)

...and the guy's name was Joe.

This was before I read the book, so I just thought it was a really odd coincidence at the time...I can't seem to find the article anymore, though. Does anyone else have any info on this? Was Joe changed to Jack to avoid legal troubles with the original "Joe's XXXXXX" author?

The author of the book was talking about real stories from Reader's Digest, so you probably did read the same ones he refered to. "Joe" is changed to "Jack" in the movie because Reader's Digest wasn't willing to allow them to mention it in the film. -- LGagnon
I have a copy of John Pekkanen's article "I am John's Brain Tumour", from Reader's Digest (South Africa) 1990-12, volume 137, number 824. Chapter 7 of my copy of Palahniuk's Fight club has "I am Jane's Uterus. I am Joe's Prostate. [...] I am totally Joe's Gallbladder", ISBN 0-099-28333-6, Vintage (1997) UK Random House. The English RD sites I searched came up empty. The earliet "Joe"s I found were two 1974 videos [1] from "Pyramid Films". I found that "Pyramid Media" credits it to RD [2]. Does anyone have a source of an actual Reader's Digest article with "Joe"? - Jeandré, 2004-04-15t22:37z
It is mentioned on the commentary for the DVD that Reader's Digest told them not to use "Joe". Apperantely they own the copyright somehow. Either way, the narrator in the book does use Joe rather than Jack. And given that the book is the original story, I believe that "Joe" should be used more often in the article than "Jack" (though "the narrator" fits the character's "name" more accurately). The article seems to lean too much towards being about the movie, which makes it seem as if it was the original source material instead of the book. It would be best that we keep the article based mainly on the book, with details on the movie where applicable. Otherwise, what we would be doing would be the equivelent of someone making the Lord of the Rings article more about the Peter Jackson movie than JRR Tolkien's work. -- LGagnon

Tyler section

We should merge the Tyler Durden section into the characters section. There isn't a need for 2 separate sections on him. As it is it looks redundant and a bit sloppy. Any details that don't fit that section can go into a different one. -- LGagnon

Backstory of the novel

I just recently updated the article on Chuck Palahniuk with info on how Fight Club came to be. This is in the first paragraph of the Biography section. I was wondering if anyone thought we should include that info in this article, since it gives the backstory of how it was written. -- LGagnon 12:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Musical

This this for real? I've never heard such a thing, can anyone offer proof? -- User:KneeLess 4:59, 05 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.playbill.com/news/article/86917.html for more details. Also a recent Guardian interview. -- The Anome 11:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2799633 . I think that there's almost enough for a stub article... -- Jon Dowland 15:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok here it is: Fight Club (musical) -- Jon Dowland 17:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Movie & Book Balance

As I mentioned above at the end of the Reader's Digest, Jack/Joe section, the article is "biased" towards the movie (that is, the info for the film is treated as being the primary source instead of the book), and needs to be balanced equally for the book. I have fixed a recent re-write of the plot section (which made it even more biased in favor of the film), but more work could be done to balance the article. I think that fixing this is the most important outstanding issue with this article, and needs to be fixed first and formost. -- LGagnon 01:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Why not separate into (book) and (film) articles? I'd like to add more data specific to the film but I feel it would "upset the balance" as you put it. --Feitclub 15:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

:: True, we could split the article into 2, but there is the problem of redundancy in between the two. Many details are shared between book and film, so they would come off as being only slightly different to the casual observer. Still, we could probably leave many of the redundant details in the book article (given that they originated there), and then simply focus the film article on the differences. This has been done in the Lord of the Rings film articles, and would probably be best for this article. -- LGagnon 20:15, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

:Btw, I'm suggesting using this article for the book, and Fight Club (film) for the film. There's no need to waste this article on disambiguation when there are only 2 articles related to the term. -- LGagnon 20:25, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, migration of film info to Fight Club (film) has begun. I suggest that only parts of the "Plot synopsis" and "Criticism and trivia" sections get migrated to that article, along with the pictures (I've already moved the other film related stuff). Everything else that I've left in the article relates to the book first. -- LGagnon 20:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


Nothing...or something?

In response to the question of "anarchist" and "nihilist", I have this to say. Contrary to popular belief, nihilism is not PURELY "nothing" but is similar in nature to anarchism. One of the major differences is that nihilists have this idea of destroying the past before you can build the future, Project Mayhem could possibly fit into this category. The anarchist philosophy is also much less violent than that of Tyler Durden, and it would be highly unlikely that a real anarchist would enjoy feeling pain and making others around them hurt for fun, enjoying life to the fullest is more anarchist, I would say overall that the concept of Fight Club itself is more nihilist than anarchist. There's a Dorothy Day quote that compares nihilism to anarchism actually if anyone can find it. Fact of the matter is, Fight Club is too bloody violent to be anarchist (even though this is a perception different from mainstream culture), although it can't be pushed aside as such completely because there is definitely anarchist themes in the story. Some might argue that Tyler Durden was a primitivist (look up primitivism), though I don't feel that is accurate either because Project Mayhem did use technology gotten from the narrator's job. Any kind of state socialism can be ruled out since it seems quite obvious that Tyler has no intention of living under a state. I'm going to switch it back to "nihilist" but if someone has another argument, it is certainly up for discussion.

There's a few problems with your argument. First of all, the FC members don't hurt each other for fun; they do it for therapy (both for themselves and the other person in the fight). You may interpret it as harming others, but that is not what the author meant for it to be. And, might I add, they get in these fights so that they can enjoy life (once again, this goes for both fighters). Second of all, you say that they used tech from the narrator's job; this is true for the movie, but not the book. The differences between the book and film have to be taken into consideration when writing this article. I believe Tyler comes off as more of an anarchist than a nilihist in the novel. -- LGagnon 20:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Fight Club may not have received "corporate sponsorship" in the book, but Jack does say that two of Project Mayhem's divisions (I believe Mischief and Misinformation) were developing a virus that would make automatic teller machines "vomit" money into the street. A fairly sophisticated technological job, I'd say. —Anville 20:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually I didn't mean to say that they hurt each other for fun, I get that it's part of enjoying life and therapy for the instincts of man that is missing in their lives. However, I don't think this can counter the simple fact that this is not something anarchists would do. Anarchism is more pro-pleasure than pro-pain. Nihilism however has many members of this philosophy that you could imagine getting a kick out of fighting with someone for the sheer joy of it. Not to say nihilists are demonic or to cast any stereotypes, but nihilists since their conception in the Russian Revolution, have a history of violence as a means of getting their goals met. Anarchists traditionally have been more non-violent, aside from the brief "propaganda of the deed" movement. The basic ideas of nihilism, that everything is without value, and the destruction of the past, are things promoted by Tyler Durden. --Fatal 23:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Film pictures

There's no info on whether or not the film pictures added are fair use or not. They are also poorly added in (they should appear aligned vertically, not horizontally). And to be fair, we should have some pictures of the books themselves as well (specifically, the original hardcover and the new paperback; the film tie-in would just continue the imbalance of this article). With so many for the film and none for the book the article just continues to be unbalanced. -- LGagnon 22:43, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) :Well you can't really show screenshots from a book. I second, however, putting some of the different covers in the article along with the current film shots. --Fatal 02:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There wasn't any need to disambiguate this article. With only two articles (and both being related to each other), there's no real need to take up an extra page with disambiguation. -- LGagnon 19:39, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Marla Singer

Is she real? I started to wonder about this when I noticed that she appears in some sliced in shots just like Tyler. I understand that it would be hard to explain Sapce Monkeys dragging her into the s-skraper, the waiter warning her about food, but well - Tyler also seemed real. And the idea raises quite an interpretation: what I mean is looking at the movie in light of Freud's theory. It would place both of them (Marla & Tyler) in the ID: he - the destructive drives, she - the sexual drives. Or alternatively, all three of them assigned to different levels of the mind:

  • Tyler - ID - the animal - with which the narrator fights trying to overcome, tame.
  • Marla - Superego - the ideal - which he struggles to posses
  • The Narrator - Ego - torn between Marla and Tyler

All this only an idea. Enjoy.


  • Palahniuk made Marla this way to mislead the reader. At one point, the narrator says "I'm beginning to think Marla and Tyler are the same person." This tricks readers who think they are on to the big plot twist into going with Marla instead of Tyler. Of course, there could be a deeper meaning to it, but Marla is not another personality of the narrator. -- LGagnon 02:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do not capitalize fight club

For those who haven't read the book, Palahniuk never once capitalizes the club's name. The only time it is ever capitalized is in the book's title. To keep this article consistent with the book's presentation, I believe we should keep all instances of "fight club" in lower case unless referring to the title of the book and/or film. -- LGagnon 19:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


Edits reverted

Hi, I'm new and this was my first contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed LGagnon reverted my changes, claiming "rewritin g was unneeded and deleted a lot of information." Well, if you look at the diff [here], you can see that I basically cleaned up the text significantly, and added (important) information about Tyler and Marla's affair that had been omitted. Any particular reason for the revert, LGagnon? -- Joeynelson 8 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Like I said, you deleted a lot of info. There was no reason to remove important parts of the story. I've added back in the info on Tyler and Marla's affair, but that's all I could find that was work keeping from your rewrite. Might I add, I noticed you deleted some info that was in the book but not the movie; if you are editing based on the film, you don't know what you are writing about because the novel and film are quite different. The article Fight Club (film) is where you should be editing if that is the case. -- LGagnon July 8, 2005 17:14 (UTC)
Thanks for the condescension, but I have read the book. I was just trying to trim down the plot summary and make it read a little better. Can you point out any specific important info that I deleted? Yes, I removed a lot of redundant text, but isn't that the idea? -- Joeynelson 8 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend; I was just observing the fact that you deleted details that a film viewer would not have known about (which does not count as redundant text). Some other problems with your rewrite:
  • Your rewording of the Pinto situation is ambiguous; it reads as if you were claiming the situation in the book was the Pinto controversy.
  • You changed the cause of the narrator's insomnia to a result of the "nesting instinct" instead of both that and his job.
  • You completely removed Bob from the text. -- LGagnon July 8, 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Calling these things important parts of the story seems like a pretty huge stretch. But, point by point:
  • I find it hard to believe that someone would think that the Narrator was in charge of coordinating Pinto recalls in the 1970s. However, if this was your concern, that would have been a simple change to make.
  • Once again, if you felt strongly about this, that would have been a simple change.
  • I took out the two references to Bob because they seemed extraneous. They could have easily been put back in.
When I used the phrase "redundant text," I wasn't referring to any correlations between the film and novel. I was talking about streamlining the actual text of the article. For example, compare the current paragraph 2 to my (reverted) revision:

Original
At the recommendation of his doctor (who doesn't consider his insomnia to be a serious ailment), the narrator goes to a support group for men with testicular cancer to "see what real suffering is like". After finding that crying at these support groups and listening to emotional outpourings from suffering individuals allows him to sleep at night, he becomes addicted to attending them. At the same time, he befriends a cancer victim named Bob. Although he does not suffer from any of the ailments that the other attendants have, he is nevertheless never caught being a "tourist". However, one day at a support group he meets Marla Singer, a woman who also attends support groups without needing them for their original purpose. Her presence "reflects" the narrator's "tourism", and only reminds him that he doesn't belong at the support groups. This causes him to be unable to cry and consequently causes him to hate Marla. As a result of both of these factors, the narrator is once again unable to control his insomnia. After a short confrontation between the two, they begin going to separate support groups in order to avoid bumping into each other again.

My revision
At the sarcastic recommendation of a doctor, the narrator goes to a support group for men with testicular cancer to see "real suffering." Fascinated by the emotional outpourings of the men at the meeting, the narrator begins attending every support group he can track down, posing as a legitimate sufferer. He discovers that crying openly cures his insomnia and becomes addicted to attending them. After months of this, he crosses paths with Marla Singer, another "tourist" who starts showing up at his regular groups (including the testicular cancer support group). Distracted by the presence of another faker, the narrator can not cry and finds himself unable to sleep. After a short confrontation between the two, they divvy up the support groups and agree to go their seperate ways.

My revision eliminates a lot of the wordiness and repetition found in the original. It seems a little crazy to have to defend these changes. It just feels like it would have been a lot more productive to make the specific changes you pointed out rather than dump my entire revision. -- Joeynelson 8 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)

LGagnon, you appear to be too attached to this article, or specifically, your contributions. This article audience is not solely for those who have not seen the film, nor those who have. Indeed I think many of the comparisons between the two could belong in their own article entirely. This article as it stands does appear to be too wordy and lengthly, and Joeynelson's edits do appear to be working to fix this. -- Jon Dowland 15:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a fallacy; the 1st sentence of your comment was unneeded, and only hurts your argument. -- LGagnon 16:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for upsetting you - I didn't consider that to be a Personal attack, but thanks for pointing me at the article, I believe this can be used as a counter-example in the talk. -- Jon Dowland 22:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
As for what the article is about, it is about the book, as we have an article for the film. We must focus on giving details about the book, which includes mentioning some parts not in the film. And since we have a section in the film article about the differences between the two, we don't need another article for it. As for wordiness, it's fine to improve the text, but don't delete the information. Sentences can be reworded without having any of the information deleted; a good copyeditor can do this. And lengthiness is not a problem at all; Wikipedia is not paper. And besides, articles should strive to be comprehensive, and we can't do that without increasing the length. -- LGagnon 16:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
As I stated before, I'm totally at a loss as to what important information I deleted. Also, if that information was so important, why wasn't it simply added back in to the edited text (rather than reverting all of my changes)? I guess the fact that Wikipedia is not paper means that all articles should be bloated and unclear. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. --Joeynelson 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
There's no need to be rude about this. I've mentioned above some of the things you deleted, and it should be common knowledge to a copyeditor that you don't remove information, just reword it. If you can't do that, then leave it alone for another person to do so. As for the revert, you made several deletions of info, and it would be harder to readd those than to revert it. The loss of your copyedit did not outweigh the loss of information, and thus it was better to just return it to how it was before. If you'd like to copyedit again, this time without removing information, then you can. Just don't start deleting info just because you think the article is too long. Articles are long to be comprehensive, which Wikipedia strives to be. If you have a problem with that, you can make a complaint about our standards in an appropriate talk page (check the Community Portal for starters). You won't convince anyone to drop such an important standard, though. -- LGagnon 21:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Once again, what information did I delete? I made a very conscious effort to reword without losing anything. You only mentioned 3 extremely minor deletions. And where did you get the idea that I have a problem with long articles? Obviously, there's nothing inherently wrong with a long article, but when an article is unnecessarily long, shouldn't it be made more concise? Isn't that the point of, um, editing? --Joeynelson 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I told you in my above, earlier comments; I'll summarize them here:
  • You deleted info that was not in the film (this counts for various parts of the text).
  • You removed Bob from the text (how do you consider this minor?).
  • Some of your rewordings made the text ambiguous (for instance, the Pinto situation).
Your previous, rude comment mocked the standards by saying "I guess the fact that Wikipedia is not paper means that all articles should be bloated and unclear." That sounds like you are against a long article and don't see the difference between it and being bloated and unclear. And the point of editing is to improve the article, not shrink it. The size only needs to be reduced reasonably, and deleting info does not count as such. Like I said, you can make it clearer without deleting info; if you can not do this without deleting information, leave it to someone who can. -- LGagnon 23:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Not sure how many times we have to go through this, but I debunked those items point by point earlier. Surely the amount of work it would have taken to replace that information is dwarfed by the effort you've put into bickering on this page. I think the fact that you could perceive any of my edits as even slightly controversial is pretty odd. Sorry I had the audacity to touch your words. --joeynelson 16:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fight Club and Fight Club (disambiguation)

Ok, now we have a disambiguation page to manage the book, film, game and possible musical. At present, Fight Club points to the book article. Personally, I feel that it should point at the disambiguation page. I believe that at least one person is in disagreement (check edit history, the term used was per standard). Opinions? -- Jon Dowland 22:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As the book was created first, and all dirivatives originate from it, we should have it at the main article. It is practically standard to use a "main" article instead of a disambiguation page when possible, then link to the disambiguation page from it. We do this with a lot of articles, and we should do it here as well. -- LGagnon 21:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Jon. While I agree that the book is what everything else is based on, more people have seen the movie than read the book - and we name articles on what is commonly used: Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. Add to this that this is one of those rare examples of the film being better than the (good) book, and I think a good compromise is to have Fight Club be the disambiguation page, which'll have a link to Fight Club (book) at the top. If a concensus is reached, remember to carefully move the pages, keeping the edit histories so as to comply with the GPL. — Jeandré, 2005-10-30t18:50z
Whether or not the film is better known isn't what is important; the LOTR films are better known than the books, but we don't use the same reasoning there. Will we do the same for other books with better known films? How about "I, Robot" or "Starship Troopers"? The geek majority on this site will go utterly bonkers if that's done, despite the fact that they are the minority IRL. Let's be consistent with this; the book came first, and Palahniuk is a best selling author. He's well known, just as Asimov & Heinlien are (although I'd say more than them, as Palahniuk has recent bestsellers), so there's no justification for changing the article to the film instead.
The Bill/William thing is irrelevent; that is a totally different situation which deals with naming, not disambiguation. And your POV (it's yours; we didn't come to a consensus on that) is not the determining factor in a NPOV project, so whether or not the film is better does not count either. Even if we came to a consensus, it'd still be pointless and contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV mission. -- LGagnon 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You've convinced me on this point, because I don't agree with you that the LOTR films are better known than the books. We simply can't measure their popularity in any objective way. -- Jon Dowland 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
My feelings are that, right now, Fight Club should point at the book. However I am starting to think (especially with the size of the book and film articles getting as they are) that a seperate article should exist for the Fight Club "phenomenon". Details such as myths about underground fight-clubs etc. are just as home on the book pages as the film ones, and we wouldn't want to be repeating ourselves. Such an article could provide quick summaries of the history of the "franchise", book leading to film leading to game etc., and could perhaps home the differences between the various incarnations, rather than having that spread over the two main articles, too. -- Jon Dowland 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The Godfather. — Jeandré, 2005-11-01t20:21z
As a matter of ettiquette, please do not split my comments; leave your comments after my comments, not in the middle of them.
As for the phenomenon article, I don't think we really need one. The book and film articles cover it well enough, so another article would just be redundant. -- LGagnon 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok sure, although I find it much easier to read with split comments. But whatever you like. As for redundancy, the point of the article would be to remove the existing redundancy. -- Jon Dowland 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

New rules link

The rules featured in that external link never appeared in the novel; it's just a list made up by someone other than the author. There's no point in linking to some random person's fan fiction-esque list. -- LGagnon 22:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you're objection is that they're unofficial why not reword it? -- Jon Dowland 12:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not satirical, as you put it; it isn't written comically. It is nothing more than someone's made-up rules. Essentially, you're linking to fan fiction, which we don't need to link to. -- LGagnon 13:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Why not link to it? I think it's clearly satirical, but if you prefer non-canonical, we'll have that. -- Jon Dowland 18:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The better question to ask is why should we link to it? It adds nothing to the article, and has no real use outside of being fan fiction. We could add any number of fan fiction links to this article and any other article and there would never be any real point in doing so. Wikipedia is not the place to link to someone's fan fiction just for the sake of promoting their writing. You've given no good justification for the link, so I am going to remove it again. I'm hoping that I won't have to do it another time. -- LGagnon 20:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you clearly stated your objections up front, you wouldn't have to explain yourself. It would help me to know end to have proper references to fan fiction policy, too. Don't worry about having to do anything: wikipedia is voluntary, you can leave anytime you want. -- Jon Dowland 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have clearly explained myself; I mentioned that you are linking to fan fiction twice. And the first post I made essentially referred to the definition of fan fiction. It isn't my fault if you can't understand that. And no, I won't be leaving; after all, I'll need to stick around to stop your linkspam to fan fiction. -- LGagnon 21:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Big Bob

As far as I remember, Bob wasn't called "Big Bob" throughout the whole novel. I only remember one or two occurances of that name. -- LGagnon 14:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

If no one is going to respond to this, I'm changing it back. -- LGagnon 01:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Different ending?

I saw this movie on a pirated CD and the ending was different than what is stated here. The narator shoots himself in the mouth, falls, realises he's not dead, then gets up and other members of Mayham join him and whisper to each other that he's one tough bastard then they watch out the window as some of the building targeted are destroyed. I'm going to look for the CD and if I find it I'll confirm if I'm right or it's just my *great* memory


This is the article for the novel, not the film. -- LGagnon 19:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. Maybe it should be noted a the begining of the synopsis so that others don't make the same mistake.
It's mentioned in the intro to the article. We don't need to tell people twice. -- LGagnon 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Cult

It would be good to have a section on the cult of the film and how its fans are generally pretentious idiots who dress poorly and play-fight.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/g/Talk%7EFight_Club_Archive_1_5aab.html"