# Talk:Bo Burnham: Inside

In the Synopsis, it says "He congratulates Jeff Bezos." and that's it. There's 2 short songs in the special which technically congratulate him, however it's done in a satirical way. I think the sentence should be reworked or removed completely, especially considering that Bo criticizes capitalism multiple times (an example would be "How The World Works") during the special. 110.21.68.221 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not worth mentioning Bezos twice (particularly as each bit is so short), but I've added the word "sarcastically" per your point. I thought it would be self-evident that Burnham's congratulations were not earnest, but you're right that it isn't. Thank you for raising this issue. — Bilorv (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

People keep adding and removing an explanation of the line "the funniest thing happened" as referring to the COVID-19 pandemic. While this meaning is obviously implied, it is not the only valid interpretation. (For instance, you could make a compelling case that the narrative is consistent with rapid-onset agoraphobia, with a cause such as recent trauma, and that it is intentional on Burnham's part that the pandemic and virus are never named aloud, not once, in the whole special.) Without a reliable source from Burnham saying that this is the unambiguous meaning (and Burnham would be very unlikely to say such a thing based on his hands-off and death of the author style in the past), I don't see how we can say this as fact. The reader is not stupid and can be expected to understand what the comment refers to, when told earlier that the special was made in the COVID-19 pandemic, and with the obvious connection between early 2020 and the initial lockdowns in America.  If no-one disputes this then I will remove the bracketed "explanation" that the line is about the pandemic, and the {{citation needed}} tag, and add a comment telling people not to re-add this without discussion. I think so far the additions have been by independent people without awareness of the page history. — Bilorv (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Completely agree with this. Also, in the context of the wording, it could indicate that he started having panic attacks again. DrawWikiped(talk) 18:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a perfectly valid inference. — Bilorv (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bo Burnham: Inside/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 02:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Infobox looks good (but I think Josh Senior might need a source).
Added (end credits of the show suffice). — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
"about his day-to-day life indoors [...] taking photos for Instagram" (was that song about him?)
Yeah, now I tried to word this so it didn't imply that he was the one doing the "activities on the internet", but I can see how that's not come across. How does the reworded first paragraph look? — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
In the second lead paragraph, add a WP:DATECOMMA after May 30, 2021.
Serial comma after "stand-up comedy".


### Background
"Burnham begun to have" → "Burnham began to have"
Make a WP:CITEBUNDLE with the four sources after "Make Happy (2016)"
Link panic attacks in #Background and remove the link in #Synopsis.
"in [his] guest house, in his home in Los Angeles" sounds like two places. Reword.
Is it better as filmed in Burnham's guest house, inside his Los Angeles home? — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


### Synopsis and album
This section is 693 words so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
The second sentence repeats "the special" twice. Reword to avoid wordiness.
Remove the comma after "he does not want to finish the special".
#Album looks good but the track listing needs a source.


### Analysis
"analysed" → "analyzed" (American English for all uses)
Damn, I tried to purge the British English in me for the article but forgot this one. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
"and the subsequent reaction video is" → "and the subsequent reaction video are"
Do you think it's okay as The song "Unpaid Intern" and subsequent reaction video is... (no second "the", so only one article)? It's not that they're both similar to Mr. Show individually, but collectively. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes that works. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Change "(1995–8)" to "(1995–1998)" per MOS:YEARRANGE.
Change uses of "..." to "[...]" (more visually appealing).
My understanding of MOS:ELLIPSIS is that this is only preferred when there is ambiguity over whether the ellipsis is in-quote or added by us. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Link claustrophobia here and remove the link in #Reception.
Good catch: done. — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


### Reception and references
Updated Rotten Tomatoes.
I see, a new review since yesterday. The only major change will be if this drops off 100%, which is perfectly possible. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Paraphrase – WP:RECEPTION.
I've gone through another round of copyediting, trying to reduce the length and number of quotes while maintaining the same exactness to the original sources. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Archive sources.
IABot wasn't working last night, but it worked this time. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
#5 (The Gazette) is dead.
Mark Rolling Stone w/ "|url-access=limited".


### Progress
Thanks for the review! Very speedy. I've implemented all of these, or at least made a first attempt, and replied with comments to a few as well. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some controversy about the genre of this special (or maybe it's just me). Yes, Bo Burnham is traditionally a comedian but this special is at best a mix of some bits of comedy with some very serious, not-intended-for-a-chuckle, nervous-breakdowning (or to put that succinctly: comedy-drama). Bilorv says the source I included is an opinion piece not included in the body or matching the opinion of Netflix/Burnham or the majority of critics. Discuss on the talk page about how to improve the genre designation, but "one-man musical" is not an improvement. The first part may be true; how do we decide what sources are appropriate to back that up? Are we going by how Netflix markets it? "One-man musical special" absolutely does fit on the other hand. The majority entertainment portion of the special is literally musical performances. We could also just not classify it by any genre and call it something simply like "a special". Am I getting this wrong? Others' thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting discussion. It's not uncontroversial to say "The majority entertainment portion of the special is literally musical performances". For instance, Brian Logan in The Guardian calls it a "comedy Gesamtkunstwerk" [emphasizing the combination of many different art forms, only one of which is music] and other reviewers refer to the emphasis placed on the "documentary", "fly-on-the-wall" or meta-style, as well as the inclusion of traditional stand-up material. Dividing the album runtime by the total special length would tell you the proportion of seconds which are musical, but not the relative importance of the medium: that's what we need critics for. Den of Geek refers to it as "Netflix comedy special Bo Burnham: Inside". Although a bit more dubious, a number of sources (e.g. [1]) referred to it as a comedy special upon its announcement (sometimes mentioning music as well).
My main objection, really, is that I've read a couple of dozen sources and summarized the major themes in the Analysis section, and "one-man musical special" is not a great summary of them, and so introducing one NPR opinion piece that's not expanded upon, attributed in prose or reiterated in the body is not an improvement. Instead, the NPR opinion is part of the stream of thought I intended to be covered by Critics found that the special is largely serious (here are a couple more that support this statement, but not that the special isn't a comedy: [2][3]).
I would not hugely object to simply calling it "a special", though I'm unsure whether readers would then be confused by what "special" means here, but we would then have to mention elsewhere in the lead that the comedy genre is highlighted by a large number of critics as a significant feature. As for the NPR source, I tend to prefer prose sources to audio sources (easier to navigate and verify information from), and there isn't room to include every source of this quality as the Analysis and Reception sections are already plenty long enough and omit many further sources, but I wouldn't oppose some limited use of the NPR section in the body if you feel strongly that there are important aspects from the audio review that are not currently included. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your civility. I'll try to write more precisely in the future.  I think sources certainly expected a Bo Burnham special to be a comedy one "upon its announcement", I'm just doubting that's what it in reality was (in any sense where using that simple label feels right in the lead section). It sounds like even Brian Logan would agree to the complexity of this special's genre; even he posed the exact question "But is it comedy?" (Also, I didn't mean "musical" in the noun sense of "a musical," although in my defense it's common even for "a musical" to have long non-musical elements, like substantial scenes with just dialogue.) In my opinion, if Critics found that the special is largely serious then that is indeed a very good reason to not label it a comedy. Or, more specifically, it's a reason to be careful about how we label this. I'm not sure that looking at the Analysis section should be our only judge, but looking through a few of that section's sources, I notice the Tom Power source at least once calls it a "comedy-drama" (my preferred label) in addition to a comedy and The New Yorker's Rachel Syme warns it "is in no way a traditional comedy special". (By the way, a lot of these use terms including "musical fantasia" or "musical extravaganza," now that I'm digging. The Karl Quinn source legitimately says "a one-man musical-comedy". OK, so that at least partly validates me!) Actually, several of the sources talk about how the special is more like a metacommentary about an attempt to make a comedy show; that seems to hit the mark to me more, though I'm not saying we should get into all that in the lead. I'm OK with "a special" as well; however, having the same worries as you, I opted for "Netflix special" which I think is pretty well-understood in the English-speaking world. Wolfdog (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't view it as a contradiction for it to be largely serious and fall in the comedy genre—I'm British and in the UK we have lots of comedies bleaker than Hamlet—The League of Gentlemen, Jam, Flowers etc. Staying in the stand-up scene, the Australian Hannah Gadsby: Nanette is generally considered a comedy although it's very, very serious. My own opinion of Inside is that I thought it was drama and not comedy on my first watch—"documentary about making a comedy show" (very similar to what you summarize) was how I saw it—but after more familiarity, I can see comedy is always a dominating idea in it. There's something important in the fact that most reviewers were comparing this to other works of comedy, rather than tragedies or dramas. But I'd call it "a time capsule of pandemic life", which no reviewer has said in as many words.
Since the label is quite contested, I'm leaning towards just "a Netflix special" in the first sentence, because anything we can say from one source is probably contradicted by another. And then we can maybe replace the sentence beginning Critics found that the special is largely serious... with something more complete and less in Wikipedia's words: Critics found that the special incorporates a variety of art forms including music, stand-up comedy, and meta-commentary; some believed it to be some combination of comedy, drama, documentary and theater. If we are to say "musical", I think the sources you're quoting—and your original intent—is to use it as an adjective, not a noun, so the phrasing on that would need to be very clear. On the other hand, if some reviewers do call it a musical in the sense of "musical film" then that's not an unreasonable description.
The Analysis section would then maybe need some adapting to highlight any parts of this that aren't clear (e.g. the meta-commentary aspect is not described with that wording at the moment). — Bilorv (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. I can entirely get behind the most recent wording you proposed in green font and pretty much all your latest comments in general. (Ha, and yes I very much appreciate your words on the US/UK cultural divide on what constitutes comedy. Fair point. [And then there's the surreal comedy of Monty Python or the zaniness of Fawlty Towers, which I'm recently getting into!]) Let me know if, or with what changes, I can help you going forward. Wolfdog (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I've had a go at it here—let me know if you think it can be improved. (I only saw Monty Python's Life of Brian recently, a long-overdue experience I much enjoyed. There is some evidence that its closing song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is the most-played at British funerals, which I think is an astonishing fact.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page says the budget for Inside was 3.9 million dollars. However, neither of the sources cited say that the budget (i.e. production) cost $3.9 million (neither article even mentions the word budget). The $3.9 million corresponds to how much Netflix paids for the rights to broadcast it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latendresset (talk • contribs) 06:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC) 

I think you're correct. The relevant part of the article: "The comedian’s popularity comes at a cost. Netflix spent $24.1 million on the “The Closer,” slightly more than the $23.6 million it paid for Chappelle’s 2019 special, “Sticks & Stones.” By comparison, the streaming service spent $3.9 million for “Inside,” Bo Burnham’s recent hour-and-a-half special. The nine-episode “Squid Game,” which delivered the best debut in Netflix history, cost $21.4 million." I think in this context (contrasting it to the Chapelle figures), it is quite clear that Netflix paid $3.9 million for the special (and not that the special had a budget $3.9 million). I will adjust the article accordingly. Felida97 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both, and sorry for my misleading original wording. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

When was Inside released on CD and vinyl? Some say December 3 while Variety says December 17. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this—it's a good question. It looks like December 3 was the plan, and December 17 was the reality. However, when it becomes available in a particular shop or is shipped to someone who (pre-)ordered it might vary by a few days. Perhaps it'd be best just to say "December" with this new Variety source. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but the synopsis section doesnt really work, if thats the right term. It's unnecessary to summarise the plot because there isn't really a "plot" in conventional media ways. I don't really think it's helpful to list every song he sings in the Synopsis because the audience doesn't know what these songs are, and most can't really be explained through text.
The other sections of the article already delve pretty deep into the special, so I think we could just remove that section. Or we could turn it into like an overview instead of a chronological thing, like how his mental state changes throughout the special. Cereally8 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say there is a plot, as the narrative Burnham constructs is fictional (need it be said that he isn't trapped in a single room for a year?), but we sidestep the question by calling it "Synopsis". For viewers of the special I think the synopsis is useful to order the major songs/sketches. For non-viewers I think it is useful to describe themes like sexting and video game streaming that show the special's (extremely online) focus. Deteriorating mental health is part of it but not all of it. — Bilorv (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never edited on Wikipedia before, but I thought I'd suggest this. Could there be a section for the way the special has resonated with people? There are many anecdotes of people having very positive responses, healing their mental health, things like that. There are also a good deal of people who have watched the special literally hundreds of times. One girl made a custom Inside-themed Rubik's cube and gave it to Bo when she ran into him in NYC. Basically, maybe due to the themes, maybe due to the technical aspects of the special, certain people are affected in an exceptionally powerful way. Is this phenomenon (similar to Swifties in some ways, with some overlap) worth mentioning in the article? 166.48.84.242 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

We only really care about what reliable sources say. Do reliable sources talk about this? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the outtakes video on YouTube be in the External Links section? Vfheoih (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)