Talk:Fight Club (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fight Club (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Fight Club (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 – 2006
  2. anti-modernist film?
  3. 2007

Contents

[edit] References

Interviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Two more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

Reviews to utilize. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Copyedited by Malachirality (talk) – 21:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Proofread by Galena11 (talk) – 19:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to start by trimming down the article's lead. It's far, far too long, and contains an odd mixture of information, much of which (e.g. production details) would be better off elsewhere. I'll have a go myself if I find the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor considered the production paragraph to be particular "meh". I guess he was right. :) I'll try again to rewrite it, but how should I usually structure the section in terms of major points and minor points? I probably tried to write it chronologically in a very compressed manner. This article is probably one of the more extensive film articles, so I wasn't sure how to ensure that the lead section can serve to be a concise overview of the article. Ideas would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, just as a quick-shot (I suppose I should do some work today), I've only looked at the lead thus far, but I concur with the other editors who've suggested a more concise version, especially with regard to that second paragraph. Partly this could be achieved by more economical wording of what is already present, partly by removing statements which seem out of place or are too detailed for what is essentially a summary of the article. My suggestions:
First paragraph

  • "The novel was optioned by producer Laura Ziskin, who hired Uhls to write the script for the film." - in my opinion, this is too much detail; it's enough to say that Uhls wrote it, with the detail coming later in the development section.
  • Similarly, the statement about Fincher's working with Uhls to develop the script and "seeking advice from others in the film industry and his own cast members" could be incorporated into the mention of Uhls in the lead, shortened to merely mention Fincher's contribution, or omitted altogether, again to be included in the relevant section in the body of the article.
  • "Major actors and actresses were considered by the studio to help promote the film." - would this not be true of most films? It feels like padding.

Second paragraph

  • "Production of the film was considered an arduous task, involving 300 scenes, 200 locations, and complex special effects. Fincher initially filmed an amount of footage that was three times the average in the industry." – I suggest a shortening to merely reflect the arduous nature of the shoot and the amount of footage shot (e.g. "Production was arduous, with Fincher filming three times the amount of footage usual in the industry," again leaving the fine detail over the number of scenes and locations to the article body.
  • "The director also introduced a visual style to Fight Club that would match its tone. He collaborated with cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth to take advantage of lighting techniques to capture the mood for the film." – is there any way in which this differs from the usual description of the cinematographer's job? If not, I would lose it.
  • "Additionally, Fincher implemented several scenes that used extensive special effects, including an introductory scene in which the viewer is drawn out of the neural network of the protagonist's brain. The director also utilized effects to further support the film's visual style and to set certain thematic cues." – consider losing the example of the introductory braintrip (unless it was especially singled out at the time) and merging the first and second sentences.

Third and fourth paragraphs

  • These are excellent and need little attention.

I hope you won't be too offended by my other suggestions; you've done great work here. Best regards, Steve T • C 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! It's constructive criticism. I suppose I felt the need to cover the extensive Production section as there are very few film articles on Wikipedia with as much detail as I've found for Fight Club. It was just a challenge to summarize the section because a lot of it are compilations of factoids. If I try to be ambiguous, it's too vague (like duh, all/most cinematographers help out with lighting). If I try to be detailed, it's too unnecessary for the lead section (like the 300 scenes/200 locations). I'll have to see about addressing these concerns later, as I have some real-life priorities to address at the moment. I appreciate you taking the time to comment on the lead! If you weighed in on the rest of the article, that would be appreciated, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
To this untrained eye, beyond a couple of minor language fixes, the rest of the article looks just peachy; it's the lead that needs the most attention. The flow of the article is good, in terms of the chronology of development and production and that unquantifiable quality, "feel". The only other section which could maybe do with some trimming is the plot summary; I reckon it could stand to lose a hundred and fifty words and a couple of slight lapses into interpretation. Do you want me to take a quick run at that? You can always revert if you think I've removed too much. Best regards, Steve T • C 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I was actually planning to revise it before the future nomination. I wrote the Plot section a while ago, and I was aiming to re-word it more concisely. Give it a shot! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The trimming is very much appreciated! I am planning to introduce an Interpretations section, which will most likely be its own article, Interpretations of the film Fight Club which I'm developing here. I'm focusing on the film because the novel's article Fight Club already covers thematic notions, but perhaps it can be expanded to encompass both in the future. Literature and cinema won't always have the same interpretation, even if they're the same plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an impressive list of reference material you've got there; I wish I had the time to be able to devote so much effort to projects like that (my son sees to it that I don't). Good luck with it, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need a fresh pair of eyes on anything. Steve T • C 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit II

I am starting a new section for the sake of organization and clarity.

Development section-

Questions and comments:

  1. Did the screen reading last six hours? or was it the initial script?
  2. I like to eliminate short sentences and combine with conjunctions. I have done that here.
  3. Please read the "Development" section and comment on things you like/don't like/would like.
  4. Overall very well written, no repetitive wikilinks (thank you!).

Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The screen reading lasted six hours. It took place so the producers could get an idea of how long the film would be, then cut down on the elements from there. Your copy-edits look great so far! Definitely cleans up the prose. And cheers about the wiki-linking -- though, I wanted to ask, is it appropriate to wiki-link again in a new subsection? Like the first instance of the director's name in each subsection, or just the whole section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure; I know the guideline is to wikilink at the first occurrence. For shorter articles, each should only be linked once. For longer articles such as this, it's my impression that it's up to the writer's discretion to wikilink again later on. I will find out and get a definitive answer. --Malachirality (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Unimaginative Username directed me here; basically, it is editor's discretion, with the suggestion being to only link where the reader might want to digress and find out more about definition, context, etc. I would suggest, at most, linking at the first occurrence, and then linking at every other main section. --Malachirality (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
On this point, one helpful rule of thumb is to link once per "screenful" i.e. one and only one link to a given article should be visible at any one time while scrolling through the article at a standard resolution. Skomorokh incite 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with linking once per main section, as they're pretty distinct from each other. I imagine David Fincher doesn't need to be wiki-linked in every subsection of Production. Thanks for looking into the matter, Malachirality. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More questions (for "cinematography"):

  1. Is cinematography "shot" or "performed"?
  2. The director avoided "Stylish camerawork." Did he also avoid placing the camera in a fixed position? or did he place the camera in a fixed position instead of stylish camerawork?
  3. When Tyler appears in the back and out of focus, does this only apply to the scenes before Norton's character meets him? Or does he continue to appear this way off and on for the rest of the movie?

Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. I'd say "performed" because cinematography is not solely dependent on the usage of the camera, where "shot" would apply. Cinematography also uses lighting to set the style or mood for a particular scene.
  2. In this context, "stylish camerawork" meant filming the fights in a way that it would look "cool". Let me see if I can retrieve the particular passage... "The film's fight scenes also adhered to Fincher's realistic aesthetic. Deliberately avoiding flashy camerawork and refusing to stylize the skirmishes, the director elected to take a more objective view of the fights, often locking the camera down to a fixed position." Perhaps that'll help clarify the usage.
  3. Yes, it only applies for scenes before the narrator meets Tyler in person. After the meeting, the two shots and the over the shoulder shots were done to conceal the twist. I guess the passage can be re-ordered.
Let me know what else you may need to know! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For some reason "performed" always reminds of surgery or something. If it doesn't bother you, I've changed it to "direct" (execute would also work I guess). On a different note, I'd just like to remind you that LOCE only ce stable prose. What are you doing with the critical interpretations is totally fine, but just make sure that the section itself, and any section from which text is added or removed, is stable by the time I get there. I'd also rather not have text removed from the sections I've already ce, if at all possible. Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That terminology works for me, too. For the critical interpretations edit I recently performed, I was actually trying to "straighten up" ahead of you. :) The professor has a lot to say about the matter (with three studies I've found so far about the film), so I didn't want him to solely be presented as a soundbite in opposition to the feminist author. The interpretations section that I hope to add will likely be a summary of a spin-off article, considering how many resources there are to implement. It won't require any changes in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, can you save the "Critical reaction" section for last? I'd like to ensure that there's enough critical reaction covered, especially internationally. Would this be a problem for the stability of such a section? I doubt that there'd be serious contesting for whatever changes I make. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a general need for a tad more specificity here IMO. From a cursory glance:
  1. what are the techniques first experimented in se7en and the game (cinematography section)?
  2. how did the movie end up with Dust Brothers instead of Radiohead? was on the part of the the band or the movie?
  3. A clearer sense of time, if at all possible, also wouldn't hurt. When did Art Linson come on board (either month and year or a time period of how long it took him to get on board)? Also, if people weren't all hired at the same time (I recall, specifically, two screenwriter hirings taking place at different times), dates might be good also.

Above section only applies to FAC considerations, and really just my personal FAC nitpicking. It's more or less trivial, but a good thing to have over at the nom, and incorporating the information (such as question 2) is often just a matter of one word or phrase. --Malachirality (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have very many specifics for you. Here's my attempt:
  1. The techniques do not seem specified: While discussing the look of Fight Club, Fincher and Cronenweth elected to continue on the visual path that the director had begun exploring on Seven and The Game. "Fight Club is a reality-driven picture about Edward Norton's daily nine-to-five doldrums," Cronenweth details. "In all of the 'normal' reality situations, the look was supposed to be fairly bland and realistic. For the scenes when he is with Tyler, though, David wanted the look to be more hyper-real in a torn-down, deconstructed sense—a visual metaphor of what he's heading into."
  2. I'm not sure if it was specified why Dust Brothers was instead pursued -- another editor provided comprehensive notes from the film's DVD commentary for me, but the director apparently "pushed for Radiohead".
  3. For Art Linson's involvement, I don't think I can specify dates. The producer didn't express interest when the project surfaced in 1996, but after the director was confirmed in August 1997, he got involved, leading to the casting of Brad Pitt. I may need to retrieve Rebels on the Backlot again, but I recall doing my best to incorporate details. I've been a fan of dates to establish a chronology for production, so I think I would've included them if they were available.
Sorry I can't be of much help here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Visual Effect

  • Sorry to ask so many questions, but what is Pixel Liberation Front and (more importantly) how is it related to VFX, Fincher, or Haug?
  • "One of the beginning scenes": is the Mayhem equipment "lining" the street, or like "littering" the street/parking lot?
  • I forgot; do the buildings being demolished belong to credit card companies?
  • Do we need citations for the quotes "sort of shiny" and "smack-fiend patina"? Can you explain that second quote?
  • Wikilinks or context is needed to better explain the techniques used in altering the footage.
Good to see visual effects straightened up! Here's some answers:
  • Pixel Liberation Front is just a company that provided previsualized footage for the filmmakers. It doesn't need to be mentioned.
  • To be honest, I think I'm wrong about the "streets" bit. From what I recall, the camera swooped down from Tyler and the narrator in the upper level of some building down to under the ground in an underground parking lot, where there were vans with the explosives inside. I don't think they were in the streets.
  • Yes, the intention was to destroy the information that the credit card buildings and reset everyone's debt to zero. (Of course, the film overlooks the fact that the data is likely backed up in other places, but that's not worth mentioning here.)
  • The citation for that passage (Film Comment) has the director explaining it that way, so I quoted it. I assume that "smack-fiend patina" means to look like a smack fiend, like Marla Singer does here. Here's the specific passage, spoken by the director: "Lurid was definitely one of the things we wanted to do. We didn't want to be afraid of color, we wanted to control the color palette. You go into 7-Eleven in the middle of the night and there's all that green-fluorescent. And like what green light does to cellophane packages, we wanted to make people sort of shiny. Helena wears this opalescent makeup so she always has this smack-fiend patina, like a corpse. Because she is a truly romantic nihilistic."
  • Yeah, the whole visual effects section was difficult to write with a lot of technical jargon used. I tried to implement what I thought would be encyclopedic, but I assume you're referring to sentences like "adjusted to be underexposed, resilvering (lower-scale enhancement) was used to increase density, and high-contrast print socks were stepped all over the print". We can make the explanation of what they did to the footage more ambiguous, since it's tough to succinctly explain the jargon.
Let me know if there are any follow-up questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 2: The streets are practically empty, and we see them in a blur. The focus is on the explosives in the underground parking lots. –Pomte 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Malachirality about the Giroux quote being hidden, I am looking to write an interpretations article (see here), and I was planning to incorporate a better expansion of Giroux due to the very in-depth academic perspective that he has to offer. Feel free to remove the passage outright, though -- I have what I need on my subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zen

What, mention of Chinese reducation camps, but nothing on Zen? The film is loaded with Zen references, e.g. when Meatloaf turns up on the doorstep and is told to go away... that's a parallel to the entrant to the Zen monastery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.42.124 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zen would be great to add to the article, but we need a reliable source about its presence in the film. We can't just plug the reference into the article, per Wikipedia's policy of no original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Zen monastery methods, but here are a couple of quotes:

"The film has no idea how to solve its ideology and at times comes off like a haute-couture bully in its Zen materialism." [1]
"On a business trip he meets a strange dude who's Zen-like yet brutal, named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler's philosophy is that "it's only after we've lost..." [2]

–Pomte 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, these don't really seem to explore the connection of Zen and Fight Club. They seem more like contemporary descriptions based on the popular notions of the topic. I have a few academic sources that I want to incorporate in an "Interpretations" section, some being spiritually based, so maybe something like Zen will be in them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal Imagery

Did no one else notice two instances of Tyler Durden flashed on the screen in a red leather jacket? Before the scene in the airport when Brad Pitt crosses paths with Edward Norton, there are two flashes of Tyler Durden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zion007 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)#Cinematography: "Durden is also present in single frames of the narrator's scenes before the narrator actually meets Durden,[11] appearing in the background and out of focus, like a 'little devil on the shoulder'.[15] Regarding these subliminal frames, Fincher explained, 'Our hero is creating Tyler Durden in his own mind, so at this point he exists only on the periphery of the narrator's consciousness.'[24]" That what you mean? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are the 5 frames found in the film if anyone needs them; http://ticpu.net:8080/~jerome/pics/fight_club I should also warn you the fifth picture is the last frame from the film which consist of male genitals. TiCPU (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know if there is room to include it in the article, not to mention that it has the time stamps on it. If we include a screenshot, we should use one without the time stamps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I just though that instead of typing it in text, it would be easier to take it directly from the media player, but I can get you pictures without them. TiCPU (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] featured article candidate

I am adding this article to FAC procedure, it is one of the best articles I have seen on wikipedia in months. --Have a nice day. Running 00:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have withdrawn the nomination... (I would love to help Erik with the article, but I don't have much time for that :-( )--Have a nice day. Running 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed stuff

I just fixed a few spelling mistakes. Nothing major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.35.49 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Zerzan

While another editor and I agreed some time ago to mention Zerzan in the article, I feel that after re-formatting the "Critical reaction" section, John Zerzan is now the only person who mentions the film in passing compared to all the figureheads in that section. Janet Maslin of The New York Times, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, Jay Carr of The Boston Globe, David Ansen of Newsweek, Richard Schickel of Time, David Edelstein of Slate, Jeff Vice of the Deseret Morning News, and feminist author Susan Faludi all devote an entire article to the film. Whereas Zerzan only mentions it in passing toward the end of a 500+ word essay (online copy of the reference in the Wikipedia article): "And it is even showing up above ground, in films like Matrix and Fight Club..." Considering that this sparse mention contrasts the full coverage provided by the other figureheads I mentioned, I think that the sentence is undue weight and should be removed from this specific section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We should look for other "neo-luddite", anti-industrial references to expand this section on that theme.Maziotis (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at my subpage and see if there's any possible themes. I'm not sure about the ones you mentioned specifically, but there's masculinity and consumerism in most of these resources. It'd be better off in a "Interpretations" section rather than the "Critical reaction" since Zerzan's mention isn't really a critical reaction but more like commentary of long-lasting impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This does seem, unlike the other items in the section, to be somewhat of a passing reference. Further, I'm unconvinced that Zerzan's view represents a significant point of view. He's just this guy whose main notoriety stems from his befriending of a mass murderer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HORRIBLE

HORRIBLE Plot Description!!!

WP:SOFIXIT. скоморохъ 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Years in Tibet

You can see '7 Years in Tibet' is playing in a theatre before Marla gets on the bus. It's also a Brad Pitt movie. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.10 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but do you think it really belongs in an encyclopedic article? It's not a very important detail, and I'm sure that it already has a fine home at the film's trivia page on IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack

In this article, as well as the Edward Norton article, Edward Norton's character is described as nameless, or simply called the narrator. According to the official website (although its not too clear), the characters name is 'Jack'. I changed one instance from 'the narrator' to 'Jack', I'm not sure if the whole article should be reviewed and/or changed? Fionaalison (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Fight Club (film)#Writing: "The narrator was written to be nameless in the film, although he is identified in the script as Jack." In the context of the film, he's never truly identified, though it has probably been easier for him to be referred to outside the film as "Jack". I think it's appropriate, at least within the boundaries of the Plot section, to reflect that he is just a nameless narrator. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Erik. You'll have to supply a source for that, as it goes against all the previous sourcing and consensus. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of fight club

I've added a quote box listing the rules of fight club after finding a citation that mentions the rules as one of the most quoted monologues in cinema. What do other editors think of this? Is the quote box too much? Is there another way to present the information? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's anything people recognise/remember from the film, it's at least those first two rules. Any section on the film's cultural impact would be incomplete without referencing them in some way, and a quote box seems like the best choice to me too. Steve T • C 08:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, what about the formatting of the quoted monologue? I get the feeling it wouldn't be acceptable per WP:DASH. Maybe I could copy how the English subtitles of the DVD write it... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the dash would definitely be commented upon by certain unnamed parties when it comes to FAC. How about simply replacing the dash with a colon? How does the DVD present them? Steve T • C 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to take a look. I copied the quote from elsewhere online, so the particular formatting may not be accurate. I think it's pretty safe to say that "fight club" remains lowercase; all the evidence points to this formatting in both book and film. I'll fetch the DVD after this weekend to make the appropriate changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Homoerotic" analysis

Edward Norton states in the DVD commentary that the film had no intentions to portray anything homosexual, and that he didn't understand why the gay rights groups were trying to paint it that way. Quit trying to turn this into a gay thing just because there is a guy taking a bath.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.245.100 (talk • contribs)

Relax. There's no attempt here to "turn it into a gay thing", whatever that means. It's an analysis. And as it's one which stems from the intentions of the makers, it's relevant to the article. Steve T • C 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By "turn it into a gay thing" I mean assign an intention of homosexuality where there is none. But you know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.245.100 (talk • contribs) 19:20, May 7, 2008

What the creator of an artistic work intends does not necessarily matter. Though the creator may intend a particular interpretation, outsiders can provide their own interpretations of that work. I would suggest reading the article intentional fallacy. There are multiple academic studies addressing the themes of masculinity as well as other themes like temporality and spatiality. There is still critical analysis to come about all of these themes. We report all reliable interpretations neutrally. You and others are welcome to disagree with what others interpret or even how the director wants you to interpret. The article's just presenting the various views and letting the readers surmise their own conclusions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)