# Talk:Wong Kar-wai

WONG is the family name. I think this should be indicated. eysiz

It was decided the wikipedia not to follow a consistent notation for Chinese names.  In the recent articles on Olympics, names of the Chinese athletes were presented the Chinese way or the American way arbituarily with no indication on which is the family name.  Since the concept of "last name" does not mean much outside of the US and some Western culture, the assumption of family name = last name is bogus.  I suggested here couple years ago that wikipedia needed to adopt the international standard of writing family names in ALL CAPs like in the CIA's The World factbook.  The idea was shot down.  The confusion continued, but at lease it was a decided that way.  Kowloonese 22:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea.. this way we'd be able to use the Chinese order while still indicating the family name for western readers... eysiz.

Hope nobody minds my barging in on someone else's fine start and scribbling all over it.  I just thought some more discussion of Wong's characteristics and themes as a filmmaker was needed, especially since there was a reference to Wong's "unique style" but no description of what that style might consist of.
A couple questions: 
1) Wasn't ITMFL shot largely in Bangkok, not Macau?  I know that at least a lot of it was shot in 
Bangkok.

Yes, probably the intended Beijing scenes were moved to Macau, not the entire movie
2) And I'm pretty sure that Wong wasn't really "one of the first film-makers in Hong Kong to establish his own independent production company."  Tsui Hark, for one, did it in 1984 with Film Workshop.  I think Shaw Brothers star director Li Han Hsiang moved to Taiwan and set up his own company in the '60s, although it sank like a stone.

One of the few maybe? Btw, nice job, on HK cinema article also :-) --Ajshm 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Michael Wells 06:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback re. the main HK cinema page, Ajshm - nice to know somebody's reading.
Re: ITMFL and the move away from Beijing.  I dunno.  I thought that move was also at least partly because, in typical WKW fashion, the story was evolving away from its initial, contemporary, Beijing setting.  But I'm not sure.  Sometime soon I'll recheck the documentary material on my Criterion Collection DVD and see what they say about that.
Mainly I think it's a bit of IMDB trivia that's been circulating on the net because that the sort of thing people are interested in, the PRC oppressing poor artists. But actually I managed to find a link to an interview I read that might explain it. The intervie also sheds some light on his working methods http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2000_08/eiff_wongkarwai.html --Ajshm 21:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The first of these was supposed to be Summer in Beijing, starring Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung, but
we couldn't reach an agreement about filming in Beijing with the China Film Bureau and so
we had to give up. But the actors were still on-side, and I didn't want to let the project die.
My first idea was to go ahead with Summer in Beijing - with 'Beijing' now being a restaurant
in Macau.

Re: directors with indie production companies.  I keep thinking of others.  Wong Jing has two.  Peter Chan and a few others set up United Filmmakers Organization (UFO).  Johnnie To and Wai Ka-fai set up Milkyway Image Productions.  I actually think that's pretty common in the modern era, as it is in Hollywood.  I'm altering the sentence accordingly.
Michael Wells 20:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"lead actress Maggie Cheung famously compared the lengthy shoot to a cold she couldn't get rid of"
this was ITML not Ashes of Time, right?

I've been told by a couple of chinese friends that his name should be pronounced Wong Gar Wee. Can anyone confirm/explain this? Thx

Not sure how good your Cantonese romanisation is (and I prefer the Yale Romanization of Cantonese), but I've linked some wav files here so you can hear exactly how his name is pronounced.  WòhngGàWaih.  Hong Qi Gong 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sight and Sound - Wong Kar-Wai - Charisma Express
Sights and Sounds Edinburgh: Wong Kar-Wai, by Tony Rayns
/Ajshm 15:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)/

Added Chinese names next to the English names of some of the actors, actresses, and films mentioned in the article.  This is for those who may be more familiar with those people's and films' Chinese names, and also to eliminate some ambiguity, because some actors and actresses have the same English names.  For example, there are two "Tony Leung" and two "Maggie Cheung".  Hong Qi Gong 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

in the 2046 benind the scene picture, the guy in the middle is not William Cheung.
btw, re: ITMFL, most scene was shot in Hong Kong - the apartment(in TST district), the hotel(an ex-hospital), the alley(now demolished, in off-Central district), the restaurant(in Causeway Bay district, same one as in 2046, now they have a "2046 set dinner for 2" on the menu, charging HK$204.6); certain street scenes and the newspaper office where tony leung works (also breifly reappeared in 2046) is in thailand, still there near chinatown.

I'm wondering whether "He often wears dark sunglasses" is really a suitable piece of information to go in the introductory paragraph. --Tyrant007 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any sources of the fact, that Kar-wai was born on Julu 17, 1958? Yahoo! movies contended that he was born November 30, 1957 — fatal_exception ?! 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we can't use fair use images of a DVD to illustrate the director's article.  That's not narrow enough to satisfy WP:FU. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wong's current nostalgic artsy style took shape...  One just wanders what pop vulgarian added that bit on...
208.87.248.162 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wong Kar-wai. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asiastudios.com/interviews/members/wongkarwai.html
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

JT shoot with Leslie Cheung cropped.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The current article freely mixes upper- and lower-case versions of the filmmaker's name: Wong Kar-Wai and Wong Kar-wai.

Variety uses the final lower capitalization - Wong Kar-wai
Hollywood Reporter mostly uses the final upper capitalization: Wong Kar Wai
The Academy of Arts and Sciences (Oscars) also uses the final upper version: Wong Kar Wai
Do we have any consensus or definitive source for the Western version? We should make this consistent throughout the article.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Criterion also uses the lowercase hyphenated version "Wong Kar-wai". Since there have been no objections since August, looks like we'll move forward with this version. - Wong Kar-wai --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The description currently reads: “[Wong] was keen to present the relationship as ordinary and universal, as he felt Hong Kong's previous LGBT films had not.” However, the initialism “LGBT” does not appear in the sourced interview. Rather, both Wong and the interviewer refer specifically to homosexuality in Hong Kong cinema. Wong also uses the phrase “gay film.” I will wait a few days before making the edit in order to give other editors who might object an opportunity to respond. Flyhurter (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Best to go with the sourced interview, so long as the terms are included in a quote. if you're not going to use an exact quote, you can add a note to the description instead for clarification.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I propose that we stop listing Wong Kar-wai's "notable works" in the main infobox. The parameter is useful for people who have made one or two notable works in their life, but a top-tier director like Wong has nearly a dozen prominent, acclaimed films to his credit. You'll notice the infoboxes of the likes of Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg don't feature such a laundry list of items. Further, they make the infobox too long, and prompt tiresome questions of including this movie or excluding that one. Thus it's best to completely remove the list of films from the infobox; they're also covered in the lede anyway.—indopug (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a fair idea to remove it. I think there are situations where a major filmmaker could still use a notable works sections to cut down on a large proportion of minor works, but given that the majority of Wong's films are notable I'm fine with cutting it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree -- let's cut it.  GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The Controversy section appears to have been disproportionately trimmed and tightly controlled by GimmeChoco44 on the grounds of “subjective wording,” which is itself subjective, given that all content was properly sourced and supported. For instance, the deleted sentence in the opening, “His working methods and professional ethics have strained his relationships with actors, producers, and other collaborators” is an apt summary of the section and explains the nature of the controversy — namely, to whom and how — rather than expressing opinion. It cannot reasonably be called “subjective” when it is objectively documented and well-supported in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, the list of abandoned projects, many caused by Wong’s delays, was removed, and the cited material on Song Hye-kyo’s claim was repeatedly deleted with calls for further citation. These removals are unwarranted, disproportionate, and risk censorship.
Enrico Chou (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What's at issue here are blanket subjective statements that are neither quoted or sourced. Examples from the removed text include: "...despite being a critical darling"; "has long been a polarizing figure"; "Wong's revisions to his films can be obsessive and arbitrary"; "roles were significantly reduced without notice"; "Wong is notorious"; etc. -- these types of statements can be challenged as subjective and do not satisfy Wikipedia's mandate of maintaining on objective view and encyclopedic style (ref: WP:ENCSTYLE), in which content must be "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate".
Elements which are sourced and quoted should be reinstated if you can find citations. (ref: WP:WHYCITE) GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
All the examples you mentioned are well supported by the surrounding text (e.g., “without notice” by the examples of Andy Lau and Maggie Cheung; "notorious" by the “Wong Kar-wai Victims League”), by the context of the section (“polarizing figure”), and even by the entire article (“critical darling”). Furthermore, adjectives are not “subjective” in themselves; they function as concise summaries of the laundry lists and signposts within long sections, especially where no subheadings are provided.
For example, one of your openers,“Wong’s revisions to his films include abandoning entire characters or projects,” is not only understated but also unclear to readers as to why this is "controversial." The adjectives are not subjective embellishments; obsessive conveys the objective financial and time costs, which is elaborated later, while arbitrary reflects the perspective of actors and collaborators.
The adjectives are also used in the same way as in other sections throughout the page. By your definition of “subjective,” half of the article would have to be removed, since it's full of “blanket subjective statements,” such as “pivotal figure,” “contemporary auteur,” and “one of the best filmmakers,” many of which are neither quoted or sourced.
In the end, I did try to improve the section, including correcting and adding sources, but they were repeatedly, disproportionately reverted by you without apparent review of the revision history. Enrico Chou (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Let's get some other editors to review. I feel that these subjective statements don't match Wikipedia's guidelines, and you clearly feel that inference is enough to substitute for actual sources. Facts can be stated and sourced.  GimmeChoco44 (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The summary sentences immediately followed by a list of well-sourced examples are not “inferences." And your standard for “subjective” wording is subjective: “pivotal figure,” “contemporary auteur,” and “one of the best filmmakers” are not meaningfully different from “critical darling”.
Enrico Chou (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Citing other areas in the article which merit attention doesn't justify repeating the subjective method in this section.
The solution seems to be limiting subjective terms to the quoted and sourced examples, while maintaining a balanced and objective framework for the introductory sentences.
Note: this will also leave room for contradictory entries by personnel who do not agree with the negative statements, which is a missing element in this section. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Citing the consistent use of far more subjective and hyperbolic wording throughout the article, including in the lead and the distinctly laudatory “Legacy” section, more than justifies the moderate phrase “critical darling.” You are the one to justify the inconsistent and selective application of such a heightened standard, which has not been applied during your long involvement with the page until now. Given that much more subjective language has long been accepted elsewhere, it is difficult not to see this section as being held to a different standard simply because it does not cover favorable material. The issue here is not that the language is subjective, but that the standard applied to it is. Enrico Chou (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
An attempt at compromise has been made. The majority of your edits have been maintained, and the overall substance of this section of the article, while still in need of more balanced sources, has remained intact. The specific edits re: (a) use of quotations from non-English sources, and (b) use of subjective (mostly accusatory or negative) language in paragraph introductions are merited and have been removed with specific challenges and explanations in each case.
Furthermore, several details in this section list Sina as a source, which should be replaced by the original source article since Sina as the aggregator is not considered [[WP:RS]] and some of the original reporting may possibly be considered unreliable (ref: [1]).
I feel this section is in need of more a more balanced narrative without subjective statements, otherwise it falls under [[WP:UNDUE]]. As mentioned earlier, I would welcome other editors of this page to weigh in on this topic. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)