Mention "most-awarded movie ever"?[edit]

I removed information from IGN yesterday that said the film was the "most-awarded movie ever" (diff), but the information was later added back here with slightly better attribution. In my opinion, this information should not be included because (a) there are so many caveats to the result that it feels trivial, (b) I don't know how they determined that The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was the previous record holder, and (c) I have no clue where the data comes from, but if it's from IMDb or even Wikipedia, it's useless. Since I've already removed it once, I'd like to run it by other people before doing it again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable (or actually factual), it would be in mutiple reliable sources. I say remove it from the article unless other sources can back up "IGN's math". Mike Allen 02:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources that have reported on this include ScreenRant, Far Out Magazine and Hypebeast, among others. Since they didn't release how they did the math, IGN remains a reliable source. Right now it's IGN's self-described "painstaking tally" vs. RunningTiger123's "quick search" and reliance on IMDb as a source.
Per WP:WEIGHT, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. There are no RS disputing the validity of this claim. Kire1975 (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include: WP:IGN: There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. If you have evidence their calculations are unreliable, bring it forward. "I have no clue" is not a great justification. Kire1975 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that IGN faked the article and got the wrong number; I just don't know how significant that number is. Just because it's truthful doesn't mean it's meaningful. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I think I know where the numbers come from. The IGN article says that If every single nomination and award was counted, ROTK would have 213 awards from 337 nominations, which exactly matches the totals from IMDb (note that wins are not counted again as nominations in the top-line totals at IMDb). The totals for EEAAO are slightly different at IMDb, but I attribute that to a few remaining awards being finalized. So, if IMDb is where the raw data comes from, then ROTK probably wasn't the most-awarded film before this; a quick search shows La La Land, Nomadland, and The Power of the Dog all have more than 213 awards listed. One could argue that after removing awards IGN didn't want to include, those films had fewer, but the article doesn't indicate that any other films were considered. (Also, IGN's analysis is hyper-focused on directly comparing EEAAO to ROTK, so it's basically impossible to fit any other films into their analysis.) That's why I'm skeptical of the article's relevance and firmly believe it should be removed.
TL;DR: Either incomplete data was used or the data was misused to get this result. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you arguing about the "213 awards, 337 nominations" figure? The article is very clear that the figure they are working with, what they call "major awards", is 158 for EEAAO and 101 for ROTK? Kire1975 (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: Since I think I've addressed your concern (I now have evidence their calculations may be faulty) and nobody else has commented, I'm going to remove the information again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get confirmation from RS where the raw data comes from?
a quick search shows La La Land, Nomadland, and The Power of the Dog all have more than 213 awards listed. Listed where?
How is it "hyper-focused" on comparing EEAAO to ROTK?
Either incomplete data was used or the data was misused to get this result. Which was it?
Per WP:IGN: There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. What does this mean to you? Kire1975 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "generally", but not always. Consensus can change at any time. There's also local consensus that can be achieved, which might need to happen here. Mike Allen 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To address the points one-by-one:
  • While I didn't confirm that's where the raw data comes from, the numbers are so exact that I don't think it's a huge leap to say that's the original source.
  • I got the data for La La Land, Nomadland, and The Power of the Dog at the IMDb links provided above. Those sources list totals at the top.
  • IGN's analysis specifically compared awards groups that recognized both ROTK and EEAAO. So imagine if a different awards group recognized, say, La La Land and EEAAO, but not ROTK; that group cannot be fit into the analysis as it currently stands. That's why the comparisons are so difficult.
  • I meant that either the author didn't conduct a thorough search when determining the previous most-awarded film and therefore missed those other films, or that the data was heavily filtered (see previous point) such that ROTK became the most-awarded film as a result of the data processing. I don't know how the article was written, so I can't say which happened for certain, but either option is an issue.
  • As MikeAllen pointed out, "generally" ≠ "always" reliable. Also, just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it must be included; as WP:IGN notes, Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. Since I think there is enough skepticism about how meaningful the article's conclusion is, we should play it safe and omit it.
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
imagine if a different awards group recognized, say, La La Land and EEAAO, but not ROTK. That's why I cited WP:OR when I reverted your latest attempt to omit it. Let us know when you find WP:RS that invalidates the IGN article. Kire1975 (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No original research" is based on the idea that all information included in the article should be supported by reliable sources. It does not imply (at least in my reading) that information that is omitted from the article must also have sources to justify its exclusion. That being said, I'm not an expert, so I've asked for more input from Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, IGN explicitly laid out the math. That's the bulk of the article in fact including a chart.IGN is also explicit that it's their own math and may be different than others.
Combined I would say information should be attributed to IGN as they are not making a declaration of universal fact, but are a reliable source to do such math and make a determination of their own. Slywriter (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is doubt in credibility of a source, it's appropriate to state it as the opinion of a source. The doubt doesn't have to be based on RS (though it helps). See WP:INACCURACY and WP:ORNOT. Sennalen (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. IGN clearly says that EEAAO is the most awarded movie based on their tally of awards from "major critics organizations and award bodies" and that it has more awards total than LotR: RotK, but they do not explicitly say that it has more awards total than any other movie. The other sources mentioned in this discussion attribute the "most awarded" title to IGN's methodology, and we should do the same. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Absurdist"[edit]

I have removed "absurdist" from the lead sentence. We should keep the genres simple in first sentence per WP:FILMLEAD. The lead later goes into more depth about the genres, including absurdism. Popcornfud (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it to the WP:STATUSQUO while a consensus is reached, thanks for starting this discussion. While EEAAO definitely has elements of sci-fi, the best descriptor has always been "absurdist" firstly, given the wild "genre-bending" elements of the film. The quoted NYT review points out well that describing it as a martial arts or sci-film misses the heart and true point of the film, which is more aligned with a comedy-drama.[1] Some sources that call it primarily an absurdist film: the BBC, Entertainment Tonight AP News. Given these sources, I would argue that "sci-fi" is far from the primary genre, and that "absurdist comedy-drama" is a short, succinct descriptor for the lead sentence. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that WP:FILMLEAD says to use "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". We shouldn't say it's an "absurdist" film and a "comedy drama" — that's overloading the lead sentence and gets us into diminishing returns fast. What is the primary genre identified by sources? Popcornfud (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue this is case where the number one thing mentioned about it's genre is that it is difficult to define, and comprised of many different genres. The guideline's do advise that (at a minimum), the lead sentences should include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", but looking at other multi-genre films such as Titanic (1997 film), Pan's Labyrinth, or Alien (film)/Aliens (film) and at the sourcing, exceptional cases such as this I believe deserve a (still very minimal) 3-word descriptor. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; those articles shouldn't be stuffed with genres either. The extent of the genre bending in Everything Everywhere is covered in depth in the lead, along with a philosophical notions including absurdism. I vote for simplicity. Popcornfud (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence should be only for the primary genre. Other genres can be discussed in the lead further down since the "Themes" section goes into more details of the genres, like it should be done in an encyclopedia. Mike Allen 00:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling out OtherStuffExists seems to be kind of missing the point of both my argument and that essay on deletion arguments, which isn't that we should never look elsewhere on Wikipedia to find examples of how well-reviewed articles handled complex situations. Aliens was promoted to a featured article with a 3-word genre descriptor just 5 months ago, but that is just an example, not the full argument. In films that bend genre in ways that are discussed frequently in sources, simply adding one extra word can be the best solution. Going with "simplicity" is doing a disservice to the reader's understanding with marginal benefit at best (cutting down a single word count from the lead sentence). A reader's understanding of the film is best served by "absurdist", and calling the film a "sci-fi" film is a misuse of the term. From that analysis by the NYT, "while the hectic action sequences and flights of science-fiction mumbo-jumbo are a big part of the fun (and the marketing), they aren't really the point. [It is] a bittersweet domestic drama, a marital comedy, a story of immigrant striving and a hurt-filled ballad of mother-daughter love." Hence the simple "absurdist comedy-drama". Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwordo13:, @Cakebrains:, Pinging to include users who just made a change related to this discussion.

Keep - Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. emphasis added. Absurdist as a sub-genre is apt for this film. Kire1975 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it says "or sub-genre", not "and sub-genre". Popcornfud (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absurdist comedy drama - the science fiction elements only serve the absurdist theme of the film. My personal preference would be surreal comedy as there aren't that many drama elements in the movie unless you focus on the acceptance of LGBT people. CABF45 (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with this one. The sci-fi elements are part of the film's overall absurdist theme. Surreal comedy could work since there aren't many elements of drama in the film. Edwordo13 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find "absurdist" used much more frequently than surreal from my searches, so I would still vouch for "absurdist comedy" if drama was cut. But I would also argue that the drama is well sourced and the core of the film. Some examples that show the diversity in what it is labeled, but ultimately led me to "absurdist comedy-drama":
Cerebral726 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it: "the core of the film" is the very thing we should be after here, not the other stuff. Whatever the primary genre is, just use that. (I'll also note at least one of the sources you list there uses "absurd/ist" more as an adjective than a genre, as in "the comedy can be absurd" and "absurdist nature".) Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:FILMLEAD. Probably the most important aspect, or central theme, of the film. 78.16.238.146 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Since the general consensus here is to call the film an absurdist comedy, let's just leave it at that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Rule 77 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023[edit]

In the oscar win part, in supporting actor, it should be "Quan", not "Kwan" 2804:D41:CFBA:B100:9194:CC89:2D1A:C5D5 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Universal acclaim"[edit]

@Duyneuzaenasagae: This is in regards to this edit I made that was undone. This has been a bit of an ongoing issue throughout the history of the article. I contend that "universally acclaimed" is inaccurate. "Universal" most often means "by everyone; in every case". We have examples of negative reviews, meaning it is definitionally inaccurate, or at a minimum open to confusion. Metacritic decides to use that terminology for their movie-rating scale, which is certainly noteworthy enough to include in the review section. But not giving that context in the lede and allowing it to be stated in Wikipedia's voice comes off as inaccurate and a bit laudatory. The phrasing "near universal" or simply "widespread" avoids these issues. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface and say I understand where you're coming from with slight wording change. I wanted to take a look through other films that are "universally acclaimed" in either 1) the article summary OR 2) the Metacritic score (yes you addresses this, but I wanted to take a look) and see how they handled it on their pages.
The biggest example I'm using is The Godfather, which has "universal acclaim" in the summary and the mention of the Metacritic score; however, it does has a negative sourced review on the page, so by your standards The Godfather should lose it's "universal" labelling. Brokeback Mountain, Moonlight, and La La Land also has these qualifiers ("universal" summary mention, universal Metacritic score, and negative reviews/commentary).
Needless to say, there is a some inconsistency on how the "acclaim" is written in the summaries certain movies (universal, critical, just "acclaim", positive reviews, and some films even have some sort of variation of "List of films considered the best" written in the summary as well), even when they have universal Metacritic scores.
Also got to be wary of critics who deliberately write single negative reviews just to give a film a negative review and lower the overall rating cause the film has gotten universal acclaim otherwise. As per List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Lady Bird fell victim to this, and via the citation mentioning it, the critic admitted to writing the negative review not because of his personal review biases, but because he thought the review scores was too high.
---
If "universal acclaim" doesn't work, I feel like the alternate of "critical acclaim" should work instead. The following film Wikis have the following of "critical acclaim" in the summary, a Metacritic rating of "universal", and still have dissenting/negative reviews: Paddington 2, The Shawshank Redemption, Saving Private Ryan. What do you think? Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I understand that I am being perhaps a bit pedantic, and using other examples of films is a useful metric for seeing if people really do take that phrasing literally. I still stand by the idea that, when it comes to encyclopedic writing, avoiding ambiguous phrasing (is it truly "universal, without exception", or merely the VAST majority) when possible is always an improvement. I also think it's important to still express that the movie was overwhelmingly well-reviewed, perhaps with "strong critical acclaim", "near-universal acclaim" or even "massive critical acclaim". Cerebral726 (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently "widespread acclaim", and if "universal acclaim" is off the table (hence the discussion), I think "critical acclaim" is better for the summary.
For reference, The Banshees of Inisherin is currently using "critical acclaim", with a "universal acclaim" Metacritic score, and with negative reviews on the page.
Hence I plan on changing the text to critical acclaim and noting to check notes. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't like "universal" for EEAAO (I like "universal" and would rather use "universal", but I am okay with using "critical" instead), may I suggest you also go change the "universal" to "critical" acclaim summaries on Godfather, Brokeback Mountain, Moonlight, and La La Land as well? Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead WP:SYNTH Concerns[edit]

Throast has raised some valid concerns about SYNTH in the lead. Some prior discussion can be found here. The topic I would like to open up to other is as follows: Throast contends (copied from my talk page above):

If sourcing remains as is, the following passage needs to be removed: [...] for its originality, screenplay, direction, acting (particularly of Yeoh, Hsu, Quan, and Curtis), visual effects, costume design, action sequences, musical score, and editing. Its portrayal of philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as its approach to themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity, have been widely analyzed. "Critical acclaim" is of course perfectly fine and supported by Metacritic. That sentence could be tied together with the box office gross, just like I did in my initial edit.

To which I responded

I agree with removing the first sentence, with the possibility of building it back up with a source that analyzes what reviews have "particularly praised". In terms of the themes sentence, perhaps "The film explores philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity." Each of those items are mentioned in a number of sources, often with each other. This rephrasing allows it to act as a faithful summary of the sources, vs the first sentence which I agree picks and chooses. Thoughts?

Throast then stated:

As with the critical reception, there would need to be a source that explicitly lists these themes in summary. It would also need to explicitly mention that the film "explores" these themes (or anything synonymous with that). The article body features a bunch of individual analyses, but no summary statement as far as I can tell. If you can name such a source, I'm open to include a summary statement of themes in the lead.

The question I pose is, does the sentence "The film explores philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity." contain WP:SYNTH issues, or is it faithfully summarizing the available sources. Best possibility, is there a strong source that explicitly lists out the films many themes? Cerebral726 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with basing the theme summary on individual reviews is this: there may be more themes that are broadly discussed but not included; but the article may also contain WP:FRINGE themes that are not sufficiently discussed as to rise to the same level as others. I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily the case here, I'm just trying to illustrate why we have a policy prohibiting synthesis of sources. In short, it becomes very messy very quickly as soon as Wikipedia editors take these sort of summary statements into their own hands.
A rule of thumb I keep in mind when checking lead sections for synthesis is this: technically, every single sentence in the lead section must be supported by a citation (even though we omit them for readability's sake), either one that is already included in the body or, in cases of summary statements, citations that are reserved for the lead section (see Halloween Ends for example). If you need multiple citations to support a single sentence, i.e. if one citation is not enough, you're synthesizing. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 22:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. The article body may go into detail regarding the genre issue listing every single source and what they say.
Also read the essay Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_rigid_rule CABF45 (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm applying the policy "zealously". I've given a reasonable explanation as to why this sort of synthesis runs the risk of misrepresenting sources above. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 11:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cerebral726, if there are no further comments, I suggest replacing the current theme sentence with the one you proposed. It's at least a significant improvement over the "widely analyzed" phrasing. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 21:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYT quote in the lead[edit]

Throast, sometimes your problem seems to be the lead not having enough citations, and sometimes you remove the necessary citations. The NYT quote is written in summary style, that's why it's perfect for the lead:

The New York Times called the film a "swirl of genre anarchy" with elements of surreal comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation.[1]

CABF45 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a regurgitation of genres. We specify genres in the first sentence of the lead. What are they doing in the third paragraph? And no, the NYT critic review of the film does not attempt to summarize secondary sources. Critic reviews are WP:RSOPINION. Perfectly fine to use in the body, but why elevate the NYT review to the lead out of all reviews? Pinging Lapadite, who might want to chime in. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very complex movie, so I think the first sentence description is not enough for the lead.
The sentence is not a "critic review", the quote helps identify the many genre elements of the film. Do I think it helps the readers know what to expect from this movie? Absolutely.
It belongs in the lead as you had complained about the few references there. CABF45 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining about "the few references" in the lead. Apart from the theme sentence, it's looking good now for all I care. The conclusion that the film is a "swirl of genre anarchy" is clearly opinion. If this is about genres and you feel as though the lead sentence does not sufficiently elucidate what kind of a film this is, it should be amended, and any further detail left to the body. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, third party chiming in.
I have to agree with @CABF45 that just having "absurdist comedy-drama film" as the only mention of the movie's genre in the lead summary is selling the film short and is not enough for the lead summary of the article, especially for the average casual page viewer wondering what genre the film is ("comedy", "drama", "romantic", etc. genres should be relatively straightly forward, meanwhile "wtf is an "absurdist" film genre?").
At the same time, I can understand where @Throast is coming from with the ""swirl of genre anarchy" description and how this opinion from the New York Times is best fitted for the "Themes" section of the article.
My compromise/idea is to incorporate/paraphrase the first lines of the "Themes" section into the lead summary to help describe the sub genres/mediums/influences of the movie, but without using the opinionated quite "swirl of genre anarchy"; for reference, here is what I mean (and it has 3 references too):
---
> Everything Everywhere All at Once incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation.[2][3][1]
---
Here, we get additional subgenre/influence mentions in the lead summary that helps supplement the just "absurdist comedy-drama" genre bit which would be helpful to the average page viewer, and we don't have the opinionated quote "swirl of genre anarchy"; and both of these bits are expanded upon in the "Themes" section of the article.
What do you two think, cause I feel like this should be a good middle ground. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely keep absurdist comedy drama as the main descriptor of the film. It's been a hard fought compromise (see thread "Absurdist" above). I would add the NYT quote later in the lead just as it was earlier. CABF45 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duyneuzaenasagae, great compromise. The best solution seems to be to have a separate sentence covering genres rather than incorporating everything into the first sentence. I guess it would look something like this: Everything Everywhere All at Once is a 2022 American film written and directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who produced it with Anthony and Joe Russo and Jonathan Wang. The film incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation. That way, we have it all conveniently in one place rather than scattering genres throughout the lead. In any event, "swirl of genre anarchy" is definitely too colorful and opinionated for the lead, so that should be struck altogether. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Throast only thing now is to figure out where to re-add that compromise in.
---
Your suggestion:
"Everything Everywhere All at Once is a 2022 American film written and directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who produced it with Anthony and Joe Russo and Jonathan Wang; the film also incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation. (and the 3 sources from my above post here)"
The only differences I made to your suggestion was 1) using a semicolon versus a period to connect the lead sentence (with main genre) and the second part (with subgenres), and 2) adding "also" to the "the film...also...incorporates elements...".
---
I originally went back to the much older edits of the article to find out where they put the subgenres section (with the old "swirl of genre anarchy quote" before; though obviously I can remove that quote), and it was originally in the third paragraph of the lead summary, like this:
"Everything Everywhere All at Once premiered at South by Southwest on March 11, 2022, and began a limited theatrical release in the United States on March 25, 2022, before a wide release by Manhattan-based A24 on April 8. The film received universal acclaim for its originality, screenplay, direction, acting (particularly of Yeoh, Hsu, Quan, and Curtis), visual effects, costume design, action sequences, musical score, and editing. Its portrayal of philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as its approach to themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity, have been widely analyzed. The New York Times called the film a "swirl of genre anarchy" with elements of surreal comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation. It grossed over $139 million worldwide, surpassing A24's previous best-ever grossing film, Hereditary (2018)."
---
I like your suggestion of putting it in the first sentence/paragraph of the lead summary more than its original spot in the 3rd paragraph of the lead summary. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the old paragraph is a mess, we don't want to go back to that. Let's go with the first version, but strike the "also" after "the film". I feel it flows better that way. What do you think? Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duyneuzaenasagae, following up to get a firm consensus on the phrasing so we can change the lead accordingly. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 19:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Throast your suggestion sounds good. I think you would have a better idea on how to clean that up for the live article, so I will leave it to you. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as I was pinged by Throast. As a concise overview of an article, the lead should not cherry pick any one source's opinion. You can summarize what the general consensus is of the majority of sources, but emphasizing one source's commentary in the lead is WP:UNDUE weight. MOS:FILMLEAD also recommends: "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". Lapadite (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Scott, A. O. (March 24, 2022). "'Everything Everywhere All at Once' Review: It's Messy, and Glorious". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 18, 2022. Retrieved April 18, 2022.
  2. ^ Rubin, Rebecca (May 1, 2022). "A24's Everything Everywhere All at Once Hits Impressive Box Office Milestone". Variety. Archived from the original on May 1, 2022. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
  3. ^ Izay, Ryan (April 9, 2022). "Everything Everywhere All At Once Easter Eggs & References". ScreenRant. Archived from the original on May 9, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.

Unrelated last paragraph[edit]

The last para of criticism currently reads:

The film's Best Picture Oscar win was mostly praised by the public and industry, but received some criticism, particularly from Cannes Film Festival president Thierry Frémaux, who compared this film's win to the Best Picture win for Parasite

This is wrong, and not what the source says. Per the source (and other references to the same interview), Frémaux wasn't referring to Everything when he mentioned Parasite – as it is an American film. He was referring to Triangle of Sadness and its ineligibility for best international film, when he mentioned that he thought a film like Parasite should not have been eligible for best picture in 2020. – SJ + 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Duyneuzaenasagae: if you reread the quote you'll see it is not a critical response to the subject. By all means find and add critical reception to the article; this is just not an example of it. Please restore the change you reverted :) – SJ + 23:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SSSUUUPPPEEERRR late reply, but I did not see this before; lol thanks. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here, this is a clear misreading of the source. The first part of the sentence is also unsourced as the IndieWire article does not support the film being "mostly praised by the public and industry, but received some criticism". Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 10:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another piece of criticism from the Los Angeles Times about the Best Picture win. Maybe this would be useful. We can mention Frémaux by name but not feature his quote from the other source. HM2021 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the genre...[edit]

We should just label it a comedy. One thing that remains certain about this film is that it's quite humorous in nature.
UPDATE (08/14/2023): Also, everyone at Template talk:Infobox film agreed that this article's intro is stupidly long.
—theMainLogan (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC) —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMainLogan Maybe revert it back as "absurdist comedy-drama" since it has the philosophy of absurdism and surrealism, and some comedic and dramatic elements? DasKlose (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely should be reverted back to that. —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole discussion about this on this talk page (right above). The consensus was to keep this in the lead: the film incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist fiction, comedy drama, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, immigrant narrative, and animation. and The film explores philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity. Mike Allen 14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut some from Armond White including unnecessary ableism[edit]

This article had quoted 109 words directly from Armond White's review, more representation than any other critic has gotten in the article. Additionally, the review represents a minory viewpoint (and is not the only representation of that minority viewpoint) so the long quote was quite clearly UNDUE. Finally, this quote includes some unnecessary ableism. Yes, NOTCENSORED, but it's an unnecessarily long direct quote, so I've substantially shortened the amount quoted including removing the ableism. The quote is now about as long as the next longest quote. Possibly still UNDUE but it's in a better state now. —siroχo 09:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Googly eyes[edit]

I need someone to add info mentioning googly eyes because there's no mentions of googly eyes in this page. (sorry for bad English) DasKlose (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories