Talk:The Number 23

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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

How about a citation for the Mayan "predicting the end of a new era" thing? TheShadowZero 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't on the trailer, then it should be removed from the page anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 11:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I never saw that trailer, but I think it's interesting that everyone talks about the Mayans predicting the end of the world when they did no such thing. My calander will end on December 31, 2007; if I don't buy another calendar, will the world end? Also, this looks like a stupid movie. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind is Jim Carrey's good "serious" movie. Professor Chaos 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In the trivia secsion, saying that this film "is very similar to Stranger than Fiction" is a stretch if I ever heard one, seeing as how they're in COMPLETELY SEPARATE GENRES and that the plots aren't similar IN THE SLIGHTEST.

Point taken - statment removed. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Although its not "very" similar to Stranger than Fiction, it is a little bit (just a little). Example: both movies are about a guy who has a book written about him, and someone (whether it be the guy or someone else) is supposed to die at the end. KKIPPES 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Issues I have w/ the article

The MPAA rating of the film is not mentioned. The title should be 'The Number 23(movie)'. It would clarify things for people before they click the link. Randomfrenchie 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


We (the wiki collective) should add a critical response to this article. The movie is being almost universally trashed (not surprising, considering how much the trailer insults our intelligence) YoungAristotle 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. If I have the time, I'll take a look around and collect some articles this weekend. MSN was just vicious; they panned the film, the dialogue, the writing, and of course, Joel Schumacher. On a side note, isn't it a tad self-contradictory to have a "viral site" for the film? That sounds a concept slapped together by tragically unhip MBA's. Akbeancounter 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I already added that using rottentomatoes as a summarizing tool. Quadzilla99 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the plot summary was a bit spotty. It should be looked over for clarity issues Nevermore27 00:54, 15 March 2007
  • Trivia says "See also Alfred Harth - eleven fingers left twelve right." What does this mean? Does the guy have 11 fingers on his left ahdn, and 12 on his right? I don't understand this. //Kada 7 april 2007
Removed that last bit... not sure what it's on about. ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fill in some details re: plot. There's still a lot more to do, of course. I agree that some critical response is probably called for. But how to go about it seems a matter of taste. The difficulty, with a movie this incoherent, is that it's almost impossible to not explain the movie (as an encyclopedia entry should do) in a way that does not fill in the many blanks that the film itself leaves. That is, the risk is that the reviewer will tie together loose ends that were in the story, simply out of the necessity of trying to give the reader a clear sense of what the movie was (apparently?) about. The review will, in other words, often be more coherent than the actual film, which raises issues about interpretive license. Not something that would have to rule out our trying, just something that's always a problem with films that actually make little sense. C d h 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] euphoria?

"As Walter reads the novel and sees the character surrendering himself to his own paranoia, he begins to experience similar feelings of euphoria." Euphoria? Surrendering to paranoia isn't a sensation of well-being or elation. --ScarletSpiderDavE 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Plot

The plot part of this page makes no sense, names are given without any identification and the text is very skatchy. I haven't seen the film and so I cannot correct it, perhaps somebody else could. Dusis 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed for trivia addition

The film alludes to the fact that this 23-obsession is not new...and it reminded me of a stand-up comedian from early '80s, perhaps (I seem to remember his being introduced on a young comics thing on HBO)...He had a whole routine about the relationship of 2s and 3s to everything...and he had a word for them, something like "moledes." Anyone know who/what I mean? 67.87.36.247 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this page needs a trivia section. I'm not really good at that sort of stuff or I would do it myself but not before telling the discussion page. When I say trivia I don't mean facts about 23 but about the movie. I noticed two things when I was watching it. One, in the scene after Walter calls the cops at the park, he's standing there. In one scene his arms are folded across his chest in the next there down and then back in another shot. Two, the movie had 23 chapters on the DVD. I don't know if it's true or not but I've heard this was Jim Carrey's 23rd movie but I can't conferm that. I just believe this movie needs a trivia section. stillboy2191 23:16, 25, July 2007

The first is just a filming error, and doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedic article. The latter, I'm not sure, I think it was there before, but it wasn't true - again, I'm not sure, so it could very well be true. If it is, it can be inegrated somewhere else into the article (I believe there was something about the director's 23rd movie as well, or something). ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I took intreast in the King Edwards Hotel The H and O are not lit so that leaves King Edwards H el, 13 letters, with W in the center, the 23rd letter in the alphabet, all the letter numbers, once again excluding h and o, add up to 113, 1+1=2, 23, divide 113 by 13, you get 8.6923076923, the number keeps repeating from 076923 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.221.136 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse secret window

I cant believe noone has mentioned this on here yet....this movie is Secret Window in reverse and with a disney ending! Trottsky 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23 = Discordian?

"The plot involves an obsession with the 23 Enigma, the Discordian belief that all incidents and events are directly connected to the number 23..."

Waitaminute... Just because Discordianism makes a big deal about 23 doesn't mean they own it or invented it. They just adopted it, compiled some instances, and came up with some theories, and i guess promoted it. People WERE obsessed with the number long before Discordianism, and there are plenty of people who are or have been so obsessed or interested and are not Discordians at all! As a perfect example, this movie and its characters have pretty much NOTHING to do with Discordianism outside of the number 23. While 23 is a very prevalent Discordian idea, as Dicordianism is rather a dis-organized religion, it is by no means required dogma, and can easily be seen as not particularly necessary nor related to most other core Discordian beliefs. Calling the 23 enigma a "Discordian" belief is like calling charity a Christian belief: technically true, but rather misleading!P I'll just go ahead and cut "Discordian" out of that statement; if anyone clicks on "23 Enigma," they'll find out annyway.) Elgaroo 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, 23 is pretty incidental to Discordianism. The important number to Discordians is 5. 23 just happens to be a very, very easy number to turn into 5.71.221.235.63 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Dr. Sirius Leary is almost certainly an amalgam of R.U. Sirius and Timothy Leary, both individuals who were involved heavily with Discordianism, as well as being referenced in the seminal work "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" by R.A. Wilson (who at times has used the pen name R.U Sirius) and Robert Shea. It should be noted that the number 23 (and the spirit behind this movie) were most likely greatly influenced by this novel, as many of the references to the various numerological appearances of 23 also appear in that book, written in the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.239.237 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add that, but you must cite a reliable source in order to verify that it is not your original research. Ward3001 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topsy Kretts

Why does Topsy Kretts slit his own throat? That does not make any sense in this plot summary. :&


Dr. Sirius, who is Topsy Kretts, became obsessed with the number 23 after taking Sparrow's book for himself and publishing it. So when he sees the man that was the cause for him becoming obsessed with the number 23 running towards him accusing him of a bunch of stuff he probably freaked out and killed himself. ...Sorry, it makes a lot more sense if you watch the movie. 24.16.25.201 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is among the plot holes in this movie. Suicide is a major theme in this pic but an explanation other than "You should be dead" is not given. Sugestion is that 23 is a killer.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up tag

I removed the clean up tag. No reason was given back in May, and the many edits since then probably took care of whatever reason the tagger had but neglected to write down. Robert Happelberg 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information

In the extras from the dvd jim carrey says the yankees have 23 world championships when the yankees really have 26 championships.

[edit] Excessively Long Plot Summary Tag

I visited this article to read the plot summary. It was because I only watched parts of the film and I was totally confused by what was happening. I wanted a detailed plot summary and I knew I would probably find it here on wikipedia. I thought the editor did a pretty good job on the summary. I definitely wouldn't want the article to have less detail in the plot summary. What do other people think? --MiamiManny 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The person who placed the tag should've given an explanation here. But but despite their failing to do so, I have to agree that the plot summary was excessively long when I read it earlier today. There's too much of talk of how such and such numbers add up to 23. Here at Wikipedia it would be good enough to list just two or three such examples that have the most bearing on the plot and to mention that Walter Sparrow does a lot of these calculations in the film. Though it wouldn't hurt Wikipedia to have an external link to a page listing all the 23s people have spotted in this film. Robert Happelberg 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bear with me, because I haven't seen the film before... but it seems like, given the premise, it would be rather hard to avoid including more than "two or three" calculations and keep up with all the plot developments. I'm also sort of thinking now that out sheer, morbid curiosity I might want to watch this thing just to see if it IS that incoherent... :P Runa27 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry if i'm coming accross as cynical or pretentious or anything, but i really REALLY did not find this film incoherent or hard to follow. Its a pretty easy movie to understand (Its not exactly Brazil or anything). It is an absolutely great idea for a movie, but just missed the whole point by over explaining everything to its audience, although Jim Carey was very good. Also it does kinda seem that you could follow the pattern of 23 with pretty much any other number or could find 23 in any word if you looked hard enough. for example Copyright. add the letters, you get 121. take the 21 and add the remaining 1, you get 22, then add another 1 (as there are 2 1's in 121) and you get 23. its ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :)

[edit] Budget/Cited Reception

Can someone please find that information and make a new section? this article is poor with too much unnecessary plot info. Philbuck222 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Philbuck222, you're quite welcome to find the "budget/cited reception" sources and add the information to the article. And then you can revise the plot section per your criticism. Ward3001 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)