Talk:Being John Malkovich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In what way are the recent extensive changes to the plot synopsis beneficial? Sure, it goes into more detail, but what's the point? The original synopsis was a reasonable if succinct summary. If anyone has seen the film, they will know the plot - if they haven't seen it, it's doubtful they'd want to read about it in this much detail. It looks very much to me that somebody has got a bit carried away with putting down here what they think matters, while missing the point of an encyclopedia article about a film (which isn't really to explain plots in extreme detail). I'm tempted to revert, but I'll give those anon contributors a chance to explain themselves. Graham 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What would have happened if John Malkovich had turned down the part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs)
I remember reading that Jonze or Kaufman said they'd of simply retitled it "Being Sean Penn". (citation needed)
Contents |
[edit] Pop culture references
I know that Futurama referenced Being John Malkovich in season 5 episode 10 (the one with alternate universes) and as it's so iconic, does anyone know of anywhere else this movie is referenced so a new section could be put up? Vanityjunkie 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time Problem
"Several characters in the movie remember Malkovich as having played a jewel thief, even though, as he correctly points out, he never did. However, Malkovich did eventually play a jewel thief in Johnny English (2003)."
How can the characters in a 1999 film know that John Malkovich will play a jewel theif in a 2003 film?
It's pointing out a coincidence. In the movie it's a joke (in a way about how Malkovich isn't the best known actor) and they mistake him for another actor who played a jewel theif. In that little tid bit it's just pointing out the coincidence that John Malkovich eventually did play a jewel theif. HasBeenCorrected 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Depressing
This film is ultimately very depressing. I watched it the first time, and was amazed by the truely original concept, but when I rewatched it, I was put into a depressive funk for nearly a week that I couldn't shake! Have any critics pointed out how depression-inducing this film can be?
- I don't know. But I want to say this: If a film has any emotional impact of one week on a grown-up person, I'd say that's clearly a sign of a grand movie. Which it is. One of the best movies I have ever seen. - Ados 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gross
How much money did this film gross? Better yet, where can I find this type of information? --202.47.49.94 09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- IMDB.com - it actually needs to be in the article really 193.62.251.32 11:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Note although I'm not logged in this is Addyboy - it's also me who tagged the article as needing the trivia section sorted out and citations put in place.
[edit] See Also
Why 'Queer Cinema'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm guessing because of the ending with the two female leads ending up together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.106.74 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia
The trivia section of this article is lifted almost directly from IMDB
>An issue that I have with the trivia section is that the "beer can" shot (which is unsourced) might actually be completely wrong because of a video circling the internet that is apparently from the DVD commentary. This link says the scene was actually improvised. Does anyone have the DVD or the original scripts to see if this is true? http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2133
- Cars whiz by Malkovich. Someone yells from a passing car.
MOTORIST Hey, Malkovich! Think fast!
Malkovich looks up. A beer can comes flying out of the car and hits him on the head.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.175.4 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)