# Talk:Call Me by Your Name (film)

4 nominations (including BAFTA Award for Best Film). M.Karelin (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The plot exceeds the recommended length of plots, it contains inconsistent terminology, it contains POV, it contains detail that is necessary as we know it takes place over a summer therefore when something happens we already know takes place from some unknown time at the beginning of the summer to some point conclusion. To say something takes place over several days is redundant. Is it really necessary to be a plot spoiler? At least leave something to the actual viewers experience.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

None of that is true. Please read WP:FILM PLOT. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You are telling me that it does not include POV? Speculation? You are telling me that it does not use consistent terminology? You are telling me that what is expressed can be done so without having to include quotes and exactly what happened on each day? Again, a plot is a summary not ex excuse not to see the film. I realise that this film is new and that you may have a romantic attachment as to how it may be expressed but that is beside the point. Why with two what can be made with one?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As our guidelines state, "Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers and without using disclaimers or spoiler warnings in the article.". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it your intention to reimpose inacurracies and assumptions based on something that has nothing to do with the inaccuracies and assumptions? I realise you belief that there is nothing wrong with the plot that was previously in place but even the litte editying that has been done so far draw to the fact that it can be improved despite trying to throw in WP policies, guidelines for matters it does not concern. The wrong terminology has nothing to do with the spoiler. Yet you believe by defending it that repeating the same fact is perfectly acceptable. You believ that it is perfectly acceptable to imply what it is that the actors are experiencing although it is never at times disclosed directly with references that these emotions etc are being experienced. Yes, it is to be expected that these emotions are to be experienced but if the film does not say it and we then go on to say that that is what it is then that is speculating. Ah=gain, I understand that you do not understand this. That is a usual response to intransigence. I truly believe that because of the newness of this film and what people may attach to how they believe it should be expressed that seeing the trees from the forest is not possible. It happens with many of these plots. But then in the long run a considerable amount of what was thought significant turns out to be otherwise. Sorry to burst your bubble if that is the case but the short history of WP proves this out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Current text:  "Elio, an introspective bibliophile and musical prodigy, finds little in common with Oliver, whose carefree and exuberant personality contrasts with his own. Elio also resents vacating his bedroom for the duration of Oliver's stay."
Replacement text: "Elio is an introspective bibliophile and musical prodigy who finds little in common with Oliver's carefree and exuberant personality. Elio resents giving up his bedroom to Oliver during his stay.
Why: if you say he finds little in common with Oliver then you do not need to say that his personality is a contrast because why would it not if it is not common between them at the start or appealing to Elio? Is it necessary to say he "also" resent the bedroom situation. It is common for people to be upset about not keeping their bedroom when there are visitors.2605:E000:9143:7000:8C6F:E557:E6EA:C6DA (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the Adaptation section states that the filmmakers "chose to set the movie entirely in the present time". On the surface, this seems to contradict what is stated two sentences later: "[Guadagnino] decided to push up the original setting from 1987 to 1983".
Does anybody have an idea as to how the earlier sentence could be reworked to avoid the apparent contradiction? 24.202.254.151 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely 1983. They danced to Love My Way (song) for Christ's sakes.Ernio48 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. The present, in terms of this film, is 2017. At worse, if you consider the novel's present instead, you get 2007. So the sentence that says the movie is set in the present time would imply that it is set in 2007 or 2017, which is then contradicted by the (correct) assertion about the 1983 setting. 24.202.254.151 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions? Damian Vo (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his opinion matters of all people and why his trolling should be considered a legitimate critique for this film. It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

James Woods opinions SHOULD be on the page. He is not some random dude, he has been a critic for two highly respected publications, The Guardian and The New Republic, neither of which is some right wing, evangelical publication. It undercuts Wikipedia's credibility to censor and sanitize articles, especially on controversial topics.Scottca075 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted a factual inaccuracy in the Soundtrack section that stated this was Sufjan's first contribution to a feature film soundtrack. I mention my edit here only because the deleted statement had a proper citation (to a Spin magazine news article). The magazine is, however, mistaken. He previously scored the soundtrack to a feature film documentary, Beyond This Place. Citation:  -- PYRSMIS 08:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently copy-editing the article, and I noticed some variance in the date formatting, which was mostly dmy. Upon investigation I've found the original variety is mdy; see this diff, and retained this format until Feb 2018 diff, when it was changed without discussion or explanation here. For some reason the article creator set the template to dmy but used mdy. Because of this, I'm boldly changing the in-text format to mdy as I proceed; it'll take a few days so please excuse the mixed formatting in the meantime. I'm pinging @Dl2000: to this page to explain; if there's a good reason for the change I'll happily change it back. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

While James Wood's criticism of the age difference within the relationship depicted by the film comes primarily from a place of trolling and homophobia, the age difference within the film has been a point of contention, most recently by Karamo Brown. Slate also published a good piece on it here. I think a short sub-section on the discussion/controversy within the Reception is warranted. CLPond (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond

Seems reasonable to me. It was something I "noticed" when I watched the film, though I wasn't sure whether it had particularly attracted any attention. DonIago (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. A paragraph or two on the subject is warranted, based on the level of secondary source commentary. It's a sensitive and controversial issue, but there has been very thoughtful commentary and a diversity of perspectives. Also, Armie Hammer responded in the press; have others involved in the production have been asked about it, too? The Slate article is a good starting point, and it also ties back to how the subject was portrayed in the book. Some additional sources: Psychiatric Times published a short article on the subject written by two MDs. On the flip side, The Advocate published an article noting 19 "straight" relationships with similar age-of-consent or age-gap issues depicted in classic/generally beloved films, which (they claim) have not been scrutinized the way CMBYN has been. —BLZ · talk 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be a Controversy section for this article. To pretend that the topic wasn't controversial undercuts the credibility of Wikipedia. The criticism didn't just come from one source, or even one side of the spectrum. Queer Eye star Karamo Brown said the film 'glorifies predatory behavior'. Boston Globe writer Cheyenne Montgomery was even more explicit. Add in the comments of The Guardian critic James Woods' comments and you do have a controversy that needs to be included in the article. Would this film even have been released in the post #metoo world of Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, et all world? Scottca075 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In the info box, the budget is written as $3.5 million but then in the development and box office part, it is $3.4 mil? About the film's budget it makes me quite confused: The Number writes that it is $3.5 mil, so does Observer, but according to ScreenDaily it's $3.4 mil?
Should we change it from "$3.5 million" to "$3.4-3.5 million" in the infobox? Actually i did so for the version in my language (Vietnamese) Dawnie t (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a newer editor looking to create a Wikipedia page for a film and I was wondering where you found the poster and how it was uploaded without copyright issues. Please explain. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are a new editor, I suggest that you should leave questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse so they will be answered way quicker and more detailed than just posting them on a random article's talk page. To avoid problems with copyrights, you must provide movies posters with appropriate copyright tags, please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Hope that will help! dawnie_t 04:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that in [Montero_(Call_Me_by_Your_Name)]] it confirms that the songs title is a reference to this film.:
"The song's title is taken from Lil Nas X's first name, while the subtitle is a reference to the 2017 LGBT-themed film of the same name. André Aciman, author of Call Me by Your Name from which the film was adapted, expressed that he was grateful and humbled that Lil Nas X had written a song with the same name as his novel. Lil Nas X later stated the film was one of the first queer movies he had ever seen which felt "very artsy" and made him interested in the concept of "calling somebody by your own name as lovers and trying to keep it between you two", inspiring him to write about it." Mathiastck (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doniago: Hi! This discussion is about this good faith revert.
I believe James Woods's, a well-known American actor and producer, criticism of the movie and response of Armie Hammer is quite relevant and important as there was significant media coverage of this (Business Insider, Entertainment Weekly, FOX News, NME, IndieWire). We could perhaps replace the quote with something like "Armie Hammer responded by asking Woods about his relation with a 19-year-old" if the quote was the problem. Thoughts? Sincerely, — CuriousGolden  (T·C)  20:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As Woods is not affiliated with the film (to the best of my knowledge) nor is he, again to the best of my knowledge, a noted film critic, I don't see how this is anything other than trivia, even if it got a lot of play in the news at the time. Happy to hear from other editors though. DonIago (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
We have a quote from Queer Eye host Karamo Brown, a person who is also not affiliated with the film nor is a noted film critic, in the same section though. James Woods's criticism was significant enough for it draw a response from one of the movie's main actors. — CuriousGolden  (T·C)  21:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps that quote should be removed as well? I'm open to discussing it if you feel it should be removed if we're going to remove the Woods quote, though it should possibly be under a different thread. DonIago (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I think only some really oversensitive Americans are bothered by the theme and find it controversial, most international critics in Europe and elsewhere loved this movie a lot. ChloeLindley (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)