Talk:Oldboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (Film), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

-Based on the maga? the manga was writen AFTER the movie and is based on the movie

Contents

[edit] Is Joo-Hwan Dae-Su's brother?

"It's strange. Dae-su and Joo-Hwan both address Joo-Hwan as 'sam-choon' which translate literally to "uncle". It could also be some sort of older male relative. (Such as a person's mother's cousin) However that would mean they were either brothers or brother-in-laws. The movie does not specify who is older, because they do not address each other as "hyung". (what a younger guy says to another guy, brother or not, who is older than them by a few years) They might possibly be the same age. However, in many korean people's experience, their dad's friends are called 'ah=juh-shi', NOT 'sam-choon'. Thus there are some possibilities.

1. Joo-Hwan is Dae-su's brother of the same/similar age. Because if Joo-Hwan was older, he would be called "hyung". Likewise If Dae-su was older, Joo-Hwan would call Dae-su "Hyung".

2. Joo-Hwan is Dae-su's friend of a same/similar age. This is most unlikely because he addresses himself as " Joo-Hwan sam-choom", not "Joo-Hwan ah-juh-shi"

3. Joo-Hwan is Dae-Su's brother in law. This is most unlikely due to the formality of how he is addressing Dae-su's wife.

4. Joo-Hwan is a distant relative to Dae-Su. Perhaps a second cousin or cousin's son or something?: -Mr. SmartyPants

"Actually, Joo-Hawn was Dae-su's friend, not brother. The word sam-choon (삼춘) in Korean is a term that is often used affectionately between children and close friends of parents." - --Rommely 08:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) -That is incorrect. Sam-choon means uncle.

That is debatable. I've never really called any of my father's very affection or close friends by that term. Rather I called them "ah-juh-shii" which is what Mido calls Dae-Su. Is it possible for someone to address another by "uncle" when they are not really related like that? Possibly, but It's not really definite what Joo-Hwan's relation is with Dae-Su. Either brother or friend. My first impression was that they were siblings. But friend does seem to make more sense.

I wanted to add that the person who picks up Daesu from the police station is his brother NOT his friend, on the phone conversation he says "som-chone" which is Korean for uncle. - Chris K. Lewis

Yeah, I remember that. Good job catching it! Feel free to make edits though. I will make the change. (see below) --C S (Talk) 08:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Joo-Hawn was Dae-su's friend, not brother. The word sam-choon (삼춘) in Korean is a term that is often used affectionately between children and close friends of parents. - --Rommely 08:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I watched the movie again soon after I wrote the above and it's clear that they are not siblings. For example, Dae-Su tells Joo-Hwan about what he had seen at school during a conversation that takes place before Dae-Su moves away, and Joo-Hwan asks Dae-Su about his moving; consequently Dae-Su never learns of what happened after Joo-Hwan leaks the news to everyone. Also, it's apparent in the way they address each other. --C S (Talk) 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy that bails Dae-Su out is his brother. This is evident when he's on the phone with Dae-su's daughter and says the word "sahm-chun" which translate to "uncle" in Korean. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.210.72 (talk • contribs)


I am Korean, and I guarantee that Joo-Hwan is NOT Dae-su's brother. Children or babies are supposed to call 'uncle' the friend of their father. I think that in English, it's the same. Indiana Pacers players called 'Uncle Reggie' Reggie Miller. Does it mean that Jermaine O'neil is the cousin of Reggie Miller?


Egressio 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) egressio

[edit] Spoiler warning?

I think that we should prepare the 'FAQ' section with "spoiler warning" in this article. Many spectators leave the theater with lots of questions unsolved, sometimes because of cultural difference, sometimes because they couldn't pay attention to some details. I mean questions like "Why 15 years?", "name of chinese restaurant", "meaning of the title OLD BOY", "Evergreen thing", "meaning of the name Oh Dae-Soo", "Ants on a train", "Did Dae-Soo forget all this in the last scene?" etc.

One day, as it turned out, Dae-su had spied on Woo-jin and his sister, Soo-ah, and discovered that they were having an incestuous relationship -- i think it should be noted that Deasu wasn't aware that the scene he witnessed was incest when he blabbed about it, if I'm wrong about this somebody just change it back. 216.207.246.230 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dal-su is also in Sympathy for Mr. Vengence at the very end, he is in that terrorist organization that kills the guy at the very end of the movie. As you can see, the reason I didn't make the change myself is because I don't remember the terrorist group name or the guy who was killed at the end. My question is Oh Dal-su , who is the jailowner, is also the guy who commits suicide with his poodle by jumping off the building when Dae Su is finally out of the jail. Do they expect people to not realize it's the same guy with the huge mole or what? Never understood that

-->> hey, You are confusing Oh Dal-Su (jailowner) and Oh Kwnag-rok(leader of anarchist gang and suicidal man). Check out the Recurring Cast in Park's filmography

I took out the Oldboy alternatie usage because this page is solely about the movie and it is distracting. The alternative Oldboy meaning should be in a disambiguation page not the Oldboy movie page.

There is no disambig page, so it should go here. But it's just a definition, so it should really go on wiktionary. - Omegatron 00:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

imo the "ant scene" shows a condition of Delusional parasitosis - anyone agree and wants to put that into the main text?

"Ji-tae Yu" is transcribed as "Ji-tae Yoo" on my DVD cover, what's the right spelling? (clem 19:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))

the gas was said in the subtitles to be "valium gas" i believe, but it also said it was the same gas as used in the moscow theater? that is listed as Fentanyl... - Omegatron 03:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • probably faulty subtitles; I watched the German dubbed version at the movies and the dub was horrible (eg there are recurring lines and they got translated differently every time), so the translation work might be rather mediocre (clem 18:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I made some tiny changes in the Oldboy article. I'm very sure that he was not calling his wife for a ride but his daughter. I also delted the womanizing part because the movie never really showed anything to imply he womanized. I also removed the part where the clue was a wrapper. I'm don't remember a wrapper, but the way he found where he was imprisoned was by going to a lot of restaurants and tasting the dumplings. Remember how Mido was crossing out those words on that list? I don't want to step on anyone's shoes, I just wanted to correct what I'm very sure was incorrect. Hope no one is offended. (usni Apr 16 2005)

  • Phone call: i think he talked to both his wife and daughter during that conversation. the other guy put the wife on so the daughter wouldnt hear her father drunk?
  • Womanizing: yeah i don't remember anything about that either
  • Wrapper: he definitely found a little piece of wrapper in one of his dumpling things, which is what helped him narrow it down to "blue dragon" or whatever it said. - Omegatron 02:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
-Phone call: Yes! The other guy was talking to his wife then he put on the daughter for Dae-Su. I haven't seen the movie in a while so I forgot about that. I think just saying "he talked to his daughter" is enough. Tell me if you feel differently about it.
-I'm pretty sure that he systematically went to every Chinese restaurant to taste the dumpling he had been tasting for 15 years. I don't remember any wrapper but I would need to see it again to make sure.
Usni Apr 17, 2005
  • "Wrapper": Around 00:35:49 (My version is 1:59:55 total in length), they show Dae-su eating a dumpling in his prison room and pulling a yellow fragment of paper out from his mouth. On the fragment, it says "Blue Dragon". This is the reason why Mi-Do accompanies Dae-su to all of these Chinese restaurants that have "Blue Dragon" in their names.
  • Womanizing: Around 00:50:12, Dae-su's friend Joo-hwan says "I don't know all the 260 names of your women's husbands," in response to Dae-su asking, "Is there anyone who hates me this much?" However, it is likely that this is just a joke. —MementoVivere 10:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I felt I had to include a bigger warning because I feel the ending is so critical for the movie that a person needs to be sufficiently warned.

Well I just saw it last week and I'm sure he found a little piece of paper with two words on it, which i believe were "blue dragon" and then systematically went to every chinese restaurant with the words blue dragon in the name. but i could be wrong because of subtitles or something. - Omegatron 22:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have watched this film three times and love how the director keeps little secrets. There are still some interesting details not up yet. I will post once I have the time. Cheers. - Zhixiong 03:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His / her distinction

I don't want to turn this into an edit war, but there's two ways to read this sentence

Unable to face the truth, Dae-su has chosen to live a life with Mi-do as his lover in ignorance of their true relationship.

I see the subject as being Mi-do (i.e. Dae-su has chosen to live a life with Mi-do (break) as her lover) rather than seeing Dae-su as the subject (i.e. Dae-su has chosen to live a life (break) with Mi-do as his lover)

Which is grammatically correct, and why? If both are correct, the sentence needs to be reworded so as not to lead to confusion. Sarge Baldy June 29, 2005 22:17 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a war and I like "her" more : ) Avel791 June 30, 2005 01:24 (UTC)
oops sorry; I wasn't aware there's a discussion on that yet; else I prolly wouldn't have reverted it right away; Sarge, I now think both are grammatically correct, I just like "his" better :-) - what about changing it to something like "both have chosen to live as lovers" (yeah, then there's a problem that Mi-Do probably didn't really know what she chose (clem 30 June 2005 07:47 (UTC))


[edit] Plot Summary

this is an exceptionally written plot summary, IMHO. whoever wrote this page should take on some of the other movie synopses on wikipedia. Streamless 13:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a good synopsis, but far too long. It should be pared down much more. A huge plot summary with every single little point is just unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. This is essentially a narration of the whole movie, full of spoilers. Nowhere on the website is there a traditional plot summary, which people who have not seen the movie can look at to get an idea of the movie's plot.--68.239.49.202 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Plot Summary May Reveal Too Much

The plot summary seems to follow-up every single major point in the plot that even reveals the ending. No matter how well it is written, the Plot Summary should not reveal the whole story but merely be what the story is about. The time the author took to write the plot summary is laudable and appreciated by the fans of Wikipedia, but this reveals way too much. This, in my belief, kills the very movie and its story-driven action. I think the author of this page should cut the plot summary down to what is sufficient in explaining what the story is about and not give the whole story away. But then again, this is just my opinion.

The Plot Summary does indeed give away the entire film, which it should not. It should be a paragrpah or so, according to WP's film template page. Geoff B 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone cares, but I was googling for a complete plot spoiler and it hit wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised at how well written and complete this one was. I mean, you could argue it's not "encyclopedia-like," but I do appreciate as much information as possible from a wikipedia entry. If you guys DO take it out, however, at least link to a complete plot spoiler afterwards. 164.67.148.161 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I pulled this summary off of Rotten Tomatoes and did some minor editing: The story follows Dae-Su who is locked in a hotel room for 15 years without knowing his captor's motives. When he is finally released, Dae Su finds himself still trapped in a web of conspiracy and strangeness. His own quest for vengeance becomes tied in with romance when he falls for an attractive sushi chef, who may or may not be involved with the bizarre mystery. Not sure how to link the current spoiler-ific summary for those who want it. Any help is appreciated.

Why not put it in the introduction? I'll just do it myself. People need to really start putting three/four sentence synopses in the introduction for movie articles. Ant6n (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source your claims

"Indeed, upon release, it was proven that Zinda was nearly identical" - source

"A few Indian films are indeed "remakes" of American films, sometimes even copying the entire film nearly line for line" - source

"Sometimes even the biggest Indian superstars like Amitabh Bachchan are cast in such movies which are exact replica of foreign movies." - source

"Oldboy is one of the first instances in which a non-American film has been remade." - this is total BS.

"Another movie from Hong Kong called "The Eye" was supposedly copied to make an Indian movie Naina." - source

"Famous Indian directors like Rakesh Roshan also copied various parts of "ET" to make a hit Indian movie called "Koi Mil Gaya" but he denies any such allegations. Currently he is about to launch a sequel to this called "Krish" which apparently has got some similarities with Matrix Revolutions. Plagiarism is very common in Bollywood industry and it majorly runs on remakes violating copyrights as the returns are not enough to pay for the copyrights." source.

Sources, and plenty of them, need to be found, or a whole load of 'allegedly's need to be dropped into that whole section. I'll give it a couple of days and if it's not changed I'll severely trim it myself. Opinions? Geoff B 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Pregnancy

"Eventually, the rumor grew out of proportion until it involved Soo-ah becoming pregnant. It is not clear whether this did in fact occur,"

I just watched the film, and it seems to be pretty clear that Soo-ah wasn't pregnant, but that she believed she was, and it is stated that Dae Su 'got her pregnant with his tongue' or something like that...there doesnt seem to be any lack of clarity as to whether or not she actually did get pregnant, it seems pretty clear to me at least that she *wasn't*, but believed she was.

We don't really have any way of establishing whether she was or not. I think the only info we get is from Woo-jin, and he's hardly likely to admit getting his own sister up the duff and sharing responsibility for her suicide. He prefers to blame Dae-su. Geoff B 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun

what type of gun was used? 69.137.223.153 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC it was a derringer. Geoff B 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Tech killer

The Virginia Tech connection merits a section outside "Trivia": there are too many sources. Ichormosquito 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should request protection! This movie could be a target for vandalism.

Ehh... I actually think this section should be deleted. The evidence is pretty flimsy and the "Sky News" citation that claims he watched the film repeatedly (something i haven't read anywhere else) can't even be trusted to get the name of the Virginia Governor correct (calling him Tom instead of Tim)

quoting this article from the CNN website:
There was no apparent link between Cho and "Oldboy" besides the lone photograph among the 28 video clips, 23-page written message and 43 self-portrait photos that he sent to NBC. Cho killed the 32 victims with a handgun and a pistol, not a hammer. He did not seem to reference the film in any of his notes or messages.
that dude held a hammer in one pic, out of 43. gimme a break. the only reason some people see a connection here is that both the dude and the movie are korean.
one day later, the author of the article that is used to back up the statement that there was a connection, wrote:
Of course, we don’t know yet if Mr. Cho ever saw the film “Oldboy,” and even if he did, the film “is not real,” as another reader points out. With Mr. Cho expressing so many other reasons for his shooting spree, it is hardly time to start blaming movies.
unless someone comes up with a really good source, i see no reason to keep the trivia. the actual sources are dubious, and there is no mention of the movie in the article Virginia Tech massacre. number29 05:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it sounds like a massive co-incidence blown out of proportion. Chensiyuan 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The media hysteria, unfounded or not, is widespread enough to be worth a mention. If Wikipedia can't expose the incompetence of the press, what good is it? Ichormosquito 10:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, hence if it is unfounded, it is not worth a mention. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to 'expose the incompetence of the press' number29 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The media hysteria might be unfounded, but the fact there is media hysteria demands a mention. Ichormosquito 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the section be removed from the article, as it is not relevant to the movie itself. And please, do we really need to go to every movie article and put up a section if anybody claimed there was a connection between that movie and some lunatic who may or may not have been influenced by it? Shaolin Samurai 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For your objection's concerning relevance to the movie, see The Catcher in the Rye: Controversy. About your second objection, two points: 1) it wasn't just "anybody" who reported on the connection, but CNN, Sky News and a blog sponsered by The New York Times; and 2) Wikipedia is beholden only to the public interest; there's no reason why an article should be sterilized if the sources check. For the record, I love Oldboy. Ichormosquito 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for "sterilization" of the article, and while "reputable" news sources like CNN have have reported on the connection, the only link between Old Boy and Cho was one picture of him holding a hammer that was vaguely remniscent of an Old Boy poster, making the connection speculation at best. Shaolin Samurai 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Cho had ever watched "Oldboy." chunwook 03:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting: the professor who initially made the connection is now trying to distance himself from it as far away as possible. I still think the media storm is worth mentioning; but in a few weeks, if Sky News's "detectives" fail to turn up anything, I'd like to include the reference you deleted in order to shame Rupert Murdoch. Ichormosquito 08:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please support Oldboy as a Cinema Collaboration of the Week

We really need your help. The page is quite a mess and needs some updating. And please add a "Reaction" page as well as a "production page too.

[edit] Needs to be cleaned up

The plot is WAAAY too large (WAY over the average of I think 900 words per movie [with culturally significant movies usually getting more]), the Zinda controversy is stated twice in two different places and neither of them have sources, the box office section has no sources, in fact, the only place WITH sources seems to be how it won different awards. In fact, I'll just list what this article needs.

1] Shorten the plot length 2] Provide sources for Zinda controversy 3] Provide sources or just get rid of the 'open interpretation of ending' section 4] The production section seems vaguely like a trivia section, so please provide sources (and put it into prose) or merge with other parts of the article

This isn't a horrible article, it's not necessarily a bad one, it's just put together wrong and unsourced. 72.200.27.179 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Excessively Detailed Plot

No wonder that the plot is excessively detailed, as it is a copypaste from the IMDB page. The IMDB copyright and conditions of use says this: This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of IMDb.

Is the plot copied illegally?

83.108.42.40 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Or is the IMDB plot copied from here? Lugnuts 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from the Manga?

I just read the whole Manga (8 vols.) but the movie is better. The reason of capture and release is not clear in the Manga. Please see the thread "Ending" in the discussion section of the Manga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_Boy_%28manga%29#Ending.3F.3F)

[edit] Film noirs?

Not quite sure enough of my French to correct it, but I'm pretty sure that "film" takes the plural - not "noir" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.109.152 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article has quite literally been raped

The layout is horrible, and everything about this article is just horrendous. What happened to the last DECENT edit that was added? Why on earth has a musical score been added into the middle of an article and why is everything on single headers? Whoever had the screwed up idea of rewriting or restructuring the article would do best to go away and cry. Shame that in this instance, the "pirahna process" ate this article as live bait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.154.200 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)