# Talk:Adaptation (film)

Concerning the line: "In the film, Kaufman represents McKee as the deus ex machina, as he gives Charlie the solution to his problematic situation." In the film Adaptation, Robert McKee was introduced very early in the story. His expertise with scripts was also introduced early, and it was mention ed that McKee and Charlie would both be in New York at the same time. Because his appearance was fully explained, he is not a deus ex machina. Furthermore, his advice does not resolve a conflict at all. It causes Charlie to seek out his brother's help, which actually complicates the plot. However, the alligator that comes out of no where to eat John Laroche at the end, THAT is a deus ex machina. - Luke (4:40 EST) 4-14-06

Can't agree. Deus ex machina implies a contrived or unexpected resolution. We were already shown the presence of alligators, and thus the attack on Laroche is an acceptable event in the story.124.121.224.160 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that McKee isn't a deus ex machina for the same reasons. He is introduced early on, and his name is given in connection with a course on writing for films. Totorotroll (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping this article would list the flower species mentioned in the movie. Anyone obsessive enough to do so? —Pengo 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

David Ansen (2002-12-09). "Meta-Movie Madness". Newsweek. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Wesley Morris (2002-12-20). "A revolutionary look at the evolution of creativity". The Boston Globe. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Mike Clark (2002-12-05). "Cage's Adaptation? Sorry, Charlie". USA Today. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
-Wildroot (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adaptation./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Charlie's not agoraphobic. If he was he'd be afraid of going out of his house, but he's out of his house plenty. Uncomfortable around people, yes. Agoraphobic, no. Wikipediman23 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since for some reason I can freely edit any part of this article but the "intro" section, I have to leave a comment rather than exercise the WP dictum, "Be bold", and just fix it.
I don't wish for anybody to take this as an insult, but the intro needs refinement. First example: the reference to Charlie's "difficult struggle". A "struggle" is inherently "difficult". The word "difficult" is clearly redundant and should simply be removed.
The second example is not as egregious, but merely clumsy: "invented events". In this case, there is a clearly a need for a way to express that the events are manufactured, fictitious, or not actually part of the book the movie "purports" to be an adaptation of. Surely, one could substitute something along the lines of "contrived events" or even merely "contrivances", or...ANYTHING else that doesn't use the fragment "vent" in a word to modify another word that also uses "vent." It reads like a middle school essay. "His invented invention eventually vented the ventilation vents." "Invented events" isn't actually wrong, just unnecessarily clunky. 
"Fictional", "contrived", "figmentary", "artificial" could all be considered superior to "invented". Or, if one were truly insistent on "invented", then why not "invented situations"?
Not every article has to be a gem of prose, but I think we should expect better than this. Forgive me is this comment seems inappropriately critical, it's not meant to be an attack, but I don't know how else to express this. If anyone thinks this is too harsh, I apologize in advance. Jefferson1957 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As is clear from the earlier discussions, the actual title of the movie is Adaptation. with a period.  I hold it to be self-evident that that the WP article title should therefore include the period.


### Rename request
In the earlier discussions, most of the debate was whether the title should be simply Adaptation. with a period, or whether it should be Adaptation (film) (or Adaptation (movie))
with a disambiguator.  It was argued that most people will not notice the period in the title and therefore Adaptation. would be misleading.  I say that this is correct, but the logical
conclusion is that the title should be Adaptation. (film) (with the period and the disambiguator).  It does not matter if there are no other articles titled using Adaptation. and
a period; a disambiguator can also be used if there are articles with a similar but not identical basic title.
In the last discussion, someone cited the Manual of Style where it says that Wikipedia does not respect "decorative punctuation" in trademarks.  Fine, but that's trademarks.  Here we're talking about
a title.  And one obvious example where WP does retain "decorative punctuation" in a title is the articles M*A*S*H and M*A*S*H (TV series).  Which is good, because that's the correct title
of the TV series.
--50.100.191.11 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


### Usage in article
On another point, the article itself currently refers to the movie as Adaptation. in the lead sentence but then switches back and forth between that and plain Adaptation in the body and infobox. Whatever decision is made about the article title, this needs to be cleaned up, and covered in the lead.  If plain Adaptation is to be used, then the lead should say something like

Adaptation (officially titled Adaptation. with a period) is...
and the places  using a period should be changed.  Or if the period is to be used throughout, then the lead should say something like

Adaptation. (the period is part of the title) is...
I would change it myself, but let's see if we can get consensus on which way.
--50.100.191.11 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose changing the article title. Previous attempts to change the title name have failed because of opposition from editors who believe that the period at the end is not an integral part of the movie title. You draw what I think is an apt comparison with the movie  M*A*S*H. However, when I look at sources such as Allmovie[2], the Academy Awards[3], the New York Times[4], and [http://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Shooting-Script-Newmarket-Series/dp/1557045119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354626062&sr=8-1&keywords=adaptation+script#reader_1557045119 the published movie script], they all omit the period. Yet the same sources include the asterisks in M*A*S*H [5][6][7][http://www.amazon.com/Original-Movie-Script-Library/dp/1566933080/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354877363&sr=1-2&keywords=m*a*s*h+script].
I agree that usage within the article should be made consistent, but that usage should match the article title and omit the period. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Authors: I think that due to the addition of so much fictitious material regarding her "affair" and "drug use", that Ms Orleans' reception to the filmed adaptation of her book would be relevant. Was she involved with the adaptation process? If not, did she know what turn the film took regarding her fictional personal life prior to its release? And finally, what did she think of the finished product? Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Moi - I've read the WP article on The Orchid Thief where this very information is found. Editors, should it also be included here? All the best, Wordreader (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe it is a relevant information indeed. I'll add it right away. --Hyliad (d), January 22, 2018, 13:45 (CEST)

In the "Production" section it says: "The idea to do a film adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief dates back to 1994.[9] Fox 2000 purchased the film rights in 1997,[10] ..."
However the entry about the book itself, "The Orchid Thief", says that the book was only published in 1998, and the article it was based upon - published in 1995. I've looked at the respective references, one article from Dec 1999 says that the book was optioned "two years ago", the other from Aug 2002 says the movie "took eight years to bring to the screen". Isn't it possible that these are just rough estimates?... Anyway, if I am wrong and the film rights were indeed purchased before the article was ever published, and if Kaufman started writing the script before the book was ever published, I think it should be mentioned specifically, otherwise it is somewhat confusing. Tomg440 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204172423/http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com:80/movies/adaptation.htm to http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/movies/adaptation.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217210839/http://movies.ign.com/articles/035/035453p1.html to http://movies.ign.com/articles/035/035453p1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/movies/adaptation.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't include the period at the end of the film title, as this is stylization. (Yes, the use of unconventional punctuation is stylization.)
Stylization disrupts prose and we do not slavishly recreate it in articles, especially when it's not reflected by sources (this isn't).
Where stylization is significant or notable it can be mentioned in parentheses or footnote ("Stylized as..."). See MOS:TMSTYLE. In this case the stylization is so trivial it's not worth pointing out. Popcornfud (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, punctuation is not stylization. And the correct title is not insignificant. The article is fine as it is. 217.32.179.230 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It is a stylization – it's a representation of a typed screenplay manuscript, which would have a period at the end of each sentence, including the titles and headings. We don't include the period at the end of albums which display them on their cover, such as Behaviour or Damn for example, because they are seen as stylizations. There's no explanation as to why it's significant to include the period. The majority of reliable sources don't include the period when discussing it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No. Stylization is typography, not punctuation. 217.32.179.230 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
As much as I think editors takes the “stylization” notes a bit too far, noting a period at the end of a title is generally accepted as normal practice. Titles are generally not sentences, so it’s noted as such. Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several sections without references, and many of the existing sources have become inactive over the years. Furthermore, the article lacks a "Box Office" section, which is very important since we're talking about a film that was released in theaters. 2803:1800:1113:E073:8067:4B10:40C7:7818 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

While there is unreferenced material, there is information on the box office in the release section. Is there Box Office information you believe to be key to this film that is missing? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: The box office information in that section seems vague and incomplete to me (since the film was released worldwide). However, the reason I'm posting it in GAR is because of the lack of sources in several sections, since an article should be verifiable. 191.95.50.228 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair, but to clarify if you want to critique that a section is missing information, you should be more clear on what details or what is important its currently missing. It currently goes over its opening weekend, it's gross in North America and its worldwide gross. I feel that if you want to qualify something as a lacking, it is more helpful to state what the key information missing is other than saying it looks incomplete from an editors perspective as it would help us know what info would make it not do this or what key details an audience is missing out on to understand why we need to know more for this film in particular.  Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: What I meant by "poor" is that the box office coverage is very brief. For example, in Wreck-It Ralph, that same section is also brief, but it mentions the film's performance in its opening weekend and beyond, something this article doesn't address. 191.95.50.228 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That articles section's box office seems about a sentence or so longer and mostly carries the same information. I don't think its short. I wouldn't stress if a section "looks wrong" and comment more on what is missing. Sometimes, shorter is better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)