Talk:Match Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bad review link

I don't know who on wikipedia has it out for Woody Allen, but they keep smearing shit about him all over his movie pages. Such as the link to the bad review here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.76.7 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 December 2005

[edit] Needs more information

This article could definetly use more information such as critiques and other informations. Gryffindor 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More detail needed

The article mentions Crime and Punishment, but it should go into more detail about the film's allusions to the book, especially in the structure of the murders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.235.45 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 January 2006

The article should mention thematic similarities to earlier films by Allen, especially Crimes and Misdemeanors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.235.45 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 January 2006

I returned my comment concerning W. Somerset Maugham's 1939 story "The Facts of Life" which was made into a short film in 1948. While the movies are very different: "Match Point" being dark and Maugham's tale almost flip; --I'm certain the voice-over stating "I'd rather be lucky than good" is Allen's homage to Maugham.LarG (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning label seems misplaced

Andy (2/19/06): The warning label seems misplaced. I thought the Dostoevsky allusions were valid & accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.85.99 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 February 2006

The template, {{SectOR}}, does not challenge the section's validity or accuracy. It asks editors to add references for what appears to be original research. Could you add sources to the section? Just follow the example from the critical response section (i.e. bracket references with the <ref></ref> pairs). If you or someone else is unwilling to do that, I believe the warning should be reinstated. Kayaker 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Subtext

The Subtext section clearly includes spoilers...should they really be placed after "spoilers end here"?Eric Sieck 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, alhough there is a second spoiler warning (which we can keep for clarity anyway).--Patrick 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "U.S. DVD release date" section

I think we don't need this section anymore because there's no point of relating to this source except we passed by expectations and there may be a trivial purpose. Shall we live without it? Why or why not? How? —69.227.160.7 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More details added.

Added a number of details in relation to the connection between the book and the film. For instance, I roughly organized the similarities into the structural similarities and the psychological similarities.

I also added comments regarding both charachters attempts to reject traditional morality as well as a comment regarding Chris' success at this task relative to Raskalnikov.

Azymuthca 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The subtext section seems like wikipedia:original research to me.. thoughts? Rhobite 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I tagged this section as original research a while back, and now I removed it. Feel free to replace/rewrite it with sources. Rhobite 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

What does this line mean, exactly? "Many internet users claims that this film Johansson's first sex scene, though the scene involves her being fondled." User:Yllosubmarine 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Innocence

Should any mention be made of this film's similarity to Edith Wharton's novel, Age of Innocence?

[edit] Particular interpretation, which misses the point of Match Point

This description of the movie is one paricular interpretation, which misses an important point. In the only supernatural scene of the movie, Chris talks to his murder victims and expresses the pain that the actual getting away with the crime causes him. The fact that his luck lets him gets away makes for a terrible revelation: there is no justice, no hope for justice, blind luck rules our lifes. Thus, he loses---not wins---the match point. The opening voice-over tells you: when the ball falls short, you lose. Chris' ball is the ring. It fell short (on the pavement), and Chris lost. His getting away is a defeat. It takes away his hope. If the ring went over and disappeared in the river, the cops wouldn't have stopped pursuing Chris as a suspect. He would end up in jail but with hope that there is justice, some higher power maybe, a reason behind this maddness. Sorry, there isn't. If you hoped for one, you've lost. 199.169.240.132 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Tag

I've added a spoiler tag the Inspiration/Adaptation per Wikipedia:Spoiler subsections 1.1, 1.2 REASON: the major plot twist is revealed in a section which is NOT a Plot/Synopsis section. Tomgreeny 14:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The section is reasonably clearly marked as "Inspiration/Adaptation", and moreover it doesn't give any plot details. I've removed the intrusive and ugly tag. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This section tells you that "a married man ... has an affair that ends up in shotgun-related murder" the fact that the murder happens is the big surprising twist in the plot. Tomgreeny 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a Woody Allen film. If you watch it for the plot twists, you're wasting a cinema seat. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

From Google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22match+point%22+%22plot++twist%22+film&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

"a delicious plot twist reveals the true nature of the film", "has a clever plot twist towards the end", "the late plot twist got my attention, it came so much out of the blue", "The movie has a lame plot twist toward the end", "I don't want to divulge too much about the ridiculous plot twist" that's just from the first page of results Tomgreeny 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a the "significant plot points" spoiler tag to the article. The "plot" section explains the entire plot, twists and all. The aesthetics of the tag are not the point. Further, do we really need a spoiler for "Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the section? I'll leave it in for now but perhaps it could be worded differently so as not to accidentally spoil people who haven't seen "C&M". Clockster 09:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot section is supposed to discuss the plot - what else would it talk about? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just added spoiler tag to the 'Thematic antecedents' section, note that this is NOT a 'plot summary' section, and it contains spoilers for several other works in addition to Match Point (An American Tragedy, A Place in the Sun and Crimes and Misdemeanors). c.f. WP:SPOILER "Spoiler notices may be appropriate when significant plot revelations appear in unexpected places" Tomgreeny 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, that "Thematic antecedents" seems like little more than original research, and should be removed altogether. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the section is original research and has a needless spoiler tag. Remove the whole section. Marc Shepherd 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sideways has removed the tag from this section giving the reason 'Obviously a discussion of theme is going to discuss plot.' while it may obviously discuss the plot of the film in question (Match Point) it clearly contains spoilers for 3 different works the plot of which a reasonable person would not expect to find in an article about an entirely different film.

On the question of original research in this section; it could only original research on the most stupidly strict definitions (quite aside from the fact that all the content of the section is obviously true), if we are to hold the article to THAT high a standard we would have to remove all of it save the 'reception' section (certainly the entirely of the plot section would be OR under such a strict interpretation). Tomgreeny 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When you're (all -- this is not directed at one party) lying on your death beds, do you really think this was a good thing to spend your life worrying about? A little tag, on a little webpage that no-one outside of the project gives that much credit anyway? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone can wish to read a section on thematic similarities but not want to know the plot of the film or know other films with the same plot. What else could such a section possibly contain, if it has any content at all? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand these constant comments about plot. For most people, plot discussion does not automatically mean the revelation of spoilers or plot twists. I think you're coming at this from the point of view of someone who edits a lot on Wikipedia, while I'm trying to approach this in the way a casual user would. The fact that there are spoilers for other movies just solidifies it for me - this needs a small spoiler tag. Why on earth would anyone object to that? Clockster 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As of this moment, no movie article on Wikipedia has a spoiler tag. None. Nada. Marc Shepherd 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, but I have used Wikipedia for lots of movie research in the last few years, and I've seen spoiler tags before. If they've all been removed now, that's fine; I'll take your word for it. However, I honestly don't know what relevance that has to anything. If it's Wikipedia's policy to never use a spoiler tag in movie articles then the spoiler tag option should be removed. Clockster 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A small number of high-ranking admins have taken it upon themselves to eliminate spoiler warnings entirely from Wikipedia. The best thing to do would be to read Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and some of the archives if you want to learn more.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment is untrue: not all the participants are admins. In addition, I'm not aware that there is any ranking of admins.

However, it is indeed true that, as of now, no movie pages on Wikipedia have spoiler tags, even though many of those movies have the kind of surprising plot twists found in Match Point. The current de facto spoiler guideline isn't what I would have personally chosen—though I can live with it. But whatever its merits, I certainly think that we should be try to be consistent. If Psycho doesn't have a spoiler tag (and it doesn't), it's hard to see the case for Match Point. If they're both wrong, that's a broader issue. Marc Shepherd 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument for complete inertia, unless one is supposed to edit all film articles simultaneously somehow. The fact is that a spoiler tag here would be completely in-line with the guideline WP:SW. Now I agree that a group of editors are enforcing a DEFACTO guidline/policy of no spoiler warnings in film articles (indeed no spoiler warnings at all); but if you want to enforce such a guideline YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE GUIDELINE to reflect this defacto enforcement. (I think the reason you are not doing this is because there is no consensus for such a guideline.) Tomgreeny 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When I made my original comment, I was simply correcting the statement that Match Point ought to have a spoiler tag because other film articles do. Match Point may indeed warrant a spoiler tag—but not for that reason. Marc Shepherd 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since your comment above was posted directly under mine, I assumed you were addressing me, but I should point out I never said that Match Point should have a spoiler tag because other film articles do. Unless I've missed something, no one has made that particular argument. Clockster 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MatchPointPoster.jpg

Image:MatchPointPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)