# Talk:Suspiria (2018 film)

@Darkknight2149: let's talk about this instead of edit-warring, shall we? Guadagnino quite clearly calls the film an "homage" to the original:

Every movie I make is a step inside my teenage dreams, and Suspiria is the most remarkably precise teenage megalomaniac dream I could have had. I saw the poster when I was 11 and then I saw the film when I was 14, and it hit me hard. I immediately started to dream about making my own version of it. So in a way it makes me smile when I hear people say, “How dare you remake Suspiria. Typical commerce-driven mentality.” I was just a boy who had seen a movie that made him what he became. So that’s how I am approaching it: a homage to the incredible, powerful emotion I felt when I saw it.

Can we agree to quote him on that, instead of trying to argue that it's a reboot? No one associated with the production has used that term, that I can find. Besides, the link you want is Reboot (fiction), not plain reboot, which is about restarting computers. — Hugh (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hl: "Can we agree to quote him on that, instead of trying to argue that it's a reboot?" - With all due respect, absolutely not. First of all, neither "homage" or "reimagining" are technical terms, so it certainly can't stay on either one of those.
Second, "homage" implies that it's just a random film that was merely inspired by Suspiria. Even if the director is approaching it as that, this is an official film in the Suspiria franchise, as numerous third party reliable sources have stated. Otherwise, the infobox wouldn't say "Based on Suspiria by Dario Argento", Dario Argento and various cast members from the original wouldn't be giving their opinions on the film, and the title wouldn't be "Suspiria". As for "re-imagining", that term in itself implies a remake, reboot, or a tonally different sequel, so we're right back at square one with that.
Third, this is an encyclopedia and there is no reason to beat around the bush on this, even if some IP addresses (who aren't paying attention to sources and haven't seen the movie) think that it's going to be a remake. Do you think that reboot and remake are the same thing? Because they objectively are not, although both terms describe a film in a franchise that restarts the continuity from scratch. The primary difference is this:
• A remake retreads the general plot of the original film, usually in a more modern setting. Examples include Psycho (1998), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), and Total Recall (2012).
• A reboot tells a new story while starting the series' continuity from scratch. Examples are Batman Begins, James Bond: Casino Royale (2006), Friday the 13th (2009), and Mad Max: Fury Road.
The upcoming Suspiria film is purely and unambiguously a reboot. That quote you listed is the director describing his approach to rebooting Suspiria. He didn't literally mean "Hey, you know that film from 1977? Well, this has no connection to that whatsoever. It's just influenced by it and coincidentally has the same title."
And finally, we go by what the sources tell us. Virtually every source reporting on this film, including Deadline Hollywood ([1]), has verified that this is a reboot of Suspiria. Initially, most sources were reporting it to be a remake (an understandable mistake; it also was going to be a remake when David Gordon Green was writing), which director Luca Guadagnino and Mia Goth have both since clarified. Unless you can find a reliable primary or third party source that says it isn't a reboot, then "reboot" should stay. At this point, we don't need an exact quote specifically from the filmmakers using that precise term to include it. DarkKnight2149 19:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh my god, you think Suspiria is a "franchise"? Fanboyism truly has destroyed film culture. — Hugh (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hl: Constructive reply. But, to answer your question, it only takes two films (an original and a remake/reboot, sequel, or spin-off) to constitute a film franchise. In this case, you have the original essay, the original film, and now the 2018 film. And that's without counting Inferno (1980) and The Mother of Tears, the spiritual sequels that make up the Three Mothers trilogy! Pointing this out doesn't equate to "fanboyism". If anything, blame Dario Argento and Hollywood's infatuation with rebooting/remaking classics. DarkKnight2149 21:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This film is not a “reboot”.It is a “remake”. or at most a “reimagining”.I wonder if the user arguing for “reboot”has even read the Wikipedia articles defining “reboot” and “remake”.By Wikipedia’s own definition of “reboot”, this film is not a reboot. At most it is a “reimagining” (see wikipedia article defining “remake”). As to Guadanino saying it’s not a remake that is irrelevent. There are definitions for “reboot”, “remake”, and “reimagining” and Guadanino saying the film is not a remake doesn’t make it so. I can serve you turkey and call it chicken, but that doesn’t make what you’re eating chicken.2604:2000:6A58:A500:7549:1233:C694:6E0C (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Suspiria is also not a “Franchise”. Marvel garbage and Batman movies, and James Bond are “Franchises”. This is not. To say it is is a distortion to try to justify a poor argument.2604:2000:6A58:A500:7549:1233:C694:6E0C (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For one, I suggest you go to the Talk Page instead of edit warring. For two, we go by what the reliable sources tell us, not your personal feelings. For three, a film does not have to be a franchise to have a reboot. Not only is the distinction between remake and reboot outlined above, but a poorly worded and poorly cited Wikipedia article (that isn't even a Good or Featured Article) has no barring on this discussion and cannot be cited as a source. Four, as outlined above, Suspiria technically is a franchise, given that there is an original film, two sequels, and now a reboot. There doesn't have to be multi-billion merchandising for it to constitute a franchise. As previously mentioned, an original and a reboot alone would make it a film franchise. Your arguments are bordering on WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and were mostly already refuted. "Re-imagining" is not a technical term. It's either a remake or reboot, and it's certainly not a remake. A remake would be exactly that - directly remaking or modernising the original film (which the director has blatantly said it isn't doing). DarkKnight2149 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Who the hell do you think you are? You think you're the King. You’re the one man community. Nobody has accepted anything but you. You are the one that only sees it your way.This isn’t about my personal feelings. It has to do with how those terms have been defined. However, since it doesn’t match what you want it to be, it’s “poorly worded”. It’s crap. You’re like Trump. Good God. You obviously have no life. Enjoy your comic book fantasy worlds, manchild.2604:2000:6A58:A500:19FB:D404:2523:3095 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Who the Hell so you think you are?" - Um... DarkKnight2149 02:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
We do not need seven sources to state its a "reboot". Can we just put this to rest? Leave it at reboot. The trailer clearly shows a different direction of the same story. And technically Suspiria is part of the The Three Mothers trilogy by Argento. I know I'm just mimicking Dark's words but it is a valid point. I'd classify it more as a "re-imagining" but it ain't that different from reboot. Can we please now move on from this discussion? MyNameIsASDF (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sequels that ignore continuity of other prior sequels are reboots, as are attempts to revive franchises by "re-starting" them; but the definition in our reboot article doesn't appear to allow for "reboots" of individual standalone films. I have seen the word used in marketing materials as a euphemism for "remake", since remakes, especially in the horror genre, have developed a bad reputation over the last 20 years or so, but Wikipedia should not be written to accord with marketing bullshit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The difference between remake and reboot is explained above. They're not the same thing.
"The definition in our reboot article does not allow..." - Hence why we do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, especially ones that are not Good or Featured Articles. The term "reboot" can also very well refer to standalone films (which the cited  definition in the article stated), which is why it was corrected. This was a simple matter of a vaguely written lead.
"Sequels that ignore the continuity of other sequels..." - Are not reboots. Wikipedia has taken to calling those "alternative sequels". There's even a category for that. Sometimes people will call them "soft reboots", but that's an informal term that can mean several different things.
"I have seen the word used in marketing materials as a euphemism for "remake"" - Reboot and remake are similar, but not the same thing. They both refer to "restarting" a work or franchise, though a remake literally 'remakes' the story of the original, the other tells a different one (a la Batman Begins). A minor distinction I know; "remake" used to refer to both, before "reboot" was coined for films, in the twenty-first century. This film isn't a direct remake of the original, as the director thoroughly explained.
Also, making a genuine argument that this is "marketing bullshit" (after this is backed by reliable sources) would be hypothetically both baseless, impossible to prove, and we go by the sources regardless. It would also be your opinion. DarkKnight2149 11:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, that "reboot" is a euphemism used by marketeers who don't like calling their products "remakes" is easily verifiable, and therefore there is plenty of basis for saying we shouldn't use it, regardless of whether "officially sanctioned" sources use it. You are showing a gross misunderstanding of our sourcing policy in claiming that primary sources using questionable lingo must be adhered to because they meet some nebulous concept of "reliability". Then there is the fact that multiple reliable sources (honestly all the sources that define the difference between "reboot" and "remake") define "reboot" in a specific way that this film could not possibly adhere to. And honestly, what you are doing (taking multiple sources that vaguely and clumsily refer to the film as a reboot without explaining how that is different from a remake and extrapolating from that that it is "a reboot, not a remake", even though plenty of other sources also refer to it as a remake) is a violation of the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of NOR. Actually I take that back -- it violates both the spirit and the letter of that policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And you will never find a single reliable source that supports your explanation of why Batman Begins is a reboot and not a remake -- I've actually never seen that film described as a remake, so the comparison is useless, but it's meeting the definition of reboot that we give in the linked article is self-evident. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: "wait until the discussion is closed"? So you've completely abandoned discussion and are now demanding the rest of us find someone to "close" is discussion in our favour before you stop edit warring? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
DK, please explain your revert. You have been challenged on this by four separate editors, have convinced no one to agree with you, BRD and STATUSQUO are on our side because you made the change unilaterally within the last few months and have been repeatedly challenged, you have been ignoring talk discussion (instead repeating the same discredited arguments over again) ... there's really no excuse for this edit warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not a reboot. They are not trying to "reboot" a franchise. There is a director doing their take on the source material. The sources use the words homage and remake and we should follow suite. Everything else is OR. Valeince (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
​​IP user 210.195.7.210 (talk · contribs · logs) has changed the lede back to "reboot", and has linked to the computing term, not the media term. I've reverted twice, but can't be bothered doing so again. — Hugh (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot summaries on Wikipedia should be complete, not just a TEASER to promote curiosity about the film and encourage readers to go watch it. The current plot summary fails that test. What are the "dark secrets", and what happens after those secrets are discovered? Please see WP:SPOILER. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I have read the screenplay for the film and based on that could do a plot writeup, but I'm not sure if this would be "okay" per the W:MoS/Film as it may differ to some degrees from the finished film. I inquired on the MoS talk page about whether or not writing a plot for upcoming films based on screenplays would violate some sort of guideline, but I so far have not gotten a response. If it is permissible, I would gladly write one and include it here. The film will be screened officially in Venice next week so I presume someone may do a full plot writeup after that, so if there were significant changes in to the screenplay circulating, they could be addressed and edited at that time. Based on the press releases and trailer footage circulating, the screenplay I read seems fairly spot-on. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviews from Fantastic Fest are pretty confident about Swinton playing Dr. Jozef Klemperer: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Some of them don't even mention "Lutz Ebersdorf". Maybe it's time to take it off the infobox and cast list? Nardog (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think removing Ebersdorf from the infobox might make sense, though it would violate the standard of replicating the cast list per the billing block on theatrical posters. That being said, even if Ebersdorf is in fact Swinton (which I and most everyone else am sure it is), the official credit is still attributed to "Lutz Ebersdorf" and I tend to feel it should remain that way. Perhaps in the cast section, noting Swinton "as Lutz Ebersdorf" for the role of Klemperer would make sense. I had previously relegated the information to an explanatory footnote, which I see has been relocated to its own section. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it too soon to nominate this for GAN? The film was only released a few days ago in the United States so the article is not necessarily stable (as I am assuming more information will be added about its commercial performance). Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I typically would say it is too early at this point for most articles, but in this case I feel it has been developed to full-form. I've done a lot kiof work on it and its coverage is ample. The only additional information to be added at this point is the box office gross, which is a simple edit once the numbers come in on Box Office Mojo; this is a plain integer that can be edited as it changes. Given that the film debuted in early September, the bulk of its critical reviews were published at that time, so the critical response section has been pretty full since that time. If you overlook the article, I feel it very much stacks up with GA requirements. -Drown Soda (talk)
04:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: I'm writing this here so you'll notice it: I nominated "Bad Girl" for GA. Feel free to remove this message once you see itMagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Understandable. My only concern is the box office section, but if you can maintain it when further information is available, then it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 I think it's too soon. With the film entering public release, there is even more of a possibility of additional coverage in the coming weeks. There could be more production details, more non-critic commentary, etc. Seems like waiting a month would be better. We shouldn't be in a hurry with this kind of thing on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example of new (from what I can tell) coverage from the past week. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It also seems like there has been some coverage about the film's relationship with feminism that is not mentioned here except in a screenplay-related quote. Search results here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious if you still think this to be the case with the article in its current state. I've expanded the analysis section significantly, and as-is, it details the general critical discussion of nationalism, national guilt, and the female power/violence associations cradled within that. The number of think-pieces this film has inspired (and will continue to) is large, and there will be continued critical commentary on it for years to come. That being said, I honestly feel the article in its current state meets the standard requirements of a GA. I'm not entirely opposed to waiting, though I also don't necessarily agree with pausing a nomination on the sole principle that more information "might" roll in, so long as the article in question is already well-researched, well-cited, and can withstand a review. In any event, the nomination will inevitably sit there until someone takes the time to review it, which may be months from now anyway.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's necessary to "balance" the critical reception section. Things like replacing negative criticisms in the quote templates will work. Only negative criticism stands out. Sebastian James (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: I've done extensive work on this article and the critical reception part is at the moment the only portion I feel may need tweaking; that being said, if the critical commentary leans a certain way, then so be it; not all of the reviews have been glowing. Per WP:MoS/Film, critical commentary should be presented in a way that similar opinions are grouped together. This makes the general consensus on significant points of interest/discussion at the forefront, and also gives readers a clear idea of what the general running commentary is about the film. I also find this the most difficult thing to achieve on Wikipedia, as it requires extensive synthesis of information in a way that remains unbiased, while simultaneously presenting the prose in a way that is concise, clear, and easy to read. More reviews are still pouring in, though I'm going to try and keep it from getting too bloated.
The problem with the critical reviews of this film (as is the case with many others) is that they are not cut-and-dry "good" or "bad"; they are often far more nuanced, with individual critics praising certain elements of the film while deriding others. It's easy to do a bullet-list of each individual review, noting what s/he did and didn't like, but that goes against the MoS in terms of grouping information. I have tried to break down the commentary in separate sections that detail first the horror elements, and second, the socio-political setting (both of which are recurrent points of discussion in the reviews). I also am going to try and write a separate paragraph regarding the performances and how critics responded to those, as that seems to be underserved at the moment. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suspiria (2018 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of horror movies and have no interest in watching this film, but the article looks like a lot of good work has been put into it so I'm intrigued enough to take this review. I should be back soon with some thoughts on the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So, it might be a little early for this review, but the article is in good shape and there are obviously dedicated editors here who will make the small updates necessary moving forward (mostly in the reception section), so I am happy to promote the article to GA as long as a few issues are addressed. First, some small things:

Why not just list all of Swinton's roles in the lead instead of just two?
I don't think a cameo appearance needs to be noted in the first paragraph of the lead.
The first paragraph of the development section could probably be rearranged to be more in chronological order than it is now, which is a bit mixed up.
Accolades are a form of reception, so I think it makes more sense to have them come under the reception section.
I might come up with some more stuff later, but for now my bigger concern is the amount of direct quoting that is happening in the article at the moment. There is a lot of room for paraphrasing and copy-editing to clean-up these throughout. I am currently looking at the copyvio detector that is available from this review page above, and there are several articles that are being directly quoted a bit too much. If you can work on all the quote instances and try get them down a bit then that will be a good start for the article. Let me know how you go with all of this, or if you have any questions. Good luck, adamstom97 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thank you for this; I will work on trimming direct quotes and paraphrasing over the next few days here once the holiday is through. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, just let me know here when you are ready for me to have another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: I believe I've addressed your comments above. Per the copyvio concerns, I've run the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the two sources that were tagged over the 40%-mark were the Richard Brody (The New Yorker) and Simon Goldberg (Collider) ones, so I attempted to excise any extraneous details from those quotes while still maintaining the core sentiment expressed in them. I also cut down/paraphrased a handful of others as well. I've since run it through Copyvio Detector again and it is still hitting on the Goldberg source at a 66% confidence. There is one blockquote from the Goldberg piece, followed a bit later by a second quote consisting of a couple sentences; I'm not sure what the consensus is on how these results are generated, or what exactly is to be done in this situation (this is, weirdly enough, actually the first time I've used Copyvio Detector in all these years on Wikipedia). If more trimming needs to be done here, I'll be sure to get at it. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that Collider source is fine since it is mostly for that big blockquote, which I think is useful. My general feeling about the article at the moment is that you have done a pretty great job, especially to meet the good article criteria. I think you could continue to work on some of the prose elements in terms of copy-editing and stuff, but that is mostly if you wanted to push the article for FA status. As it is, I am happy to pass  this review. Congratulations, and well done. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

box office is out of date according to box office mojo and i tried to fix it but it did'nt work so can someone else do it for me  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadetrain (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC) 

Well, the film was released and it wasn't a remake. It only occasionally followed the plot of the original film and when it did, it did so very loosely. Meanwhile, "reboot" (which it was) is backed by multiple reliable sources, with no primary sources contradicting it.
This is why we go by what sources tell us, and not by whatever sherlocking or idea of what the film will be that you people assume before it's released. I'm perfectly fine with leaving the article at "Based on the 1977 film", but had this gone to WP:RSN, "reboot" would win by a landslide. DarkKnight2149 05:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a part in the beginning of the plot discussion where it says "her psychologist", but it's ambiguous as to whether "her" is Susie or Patricia. I'm unsure myself so I thought I'd just point it out here. easytoplease (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This article seems excessively detailed for its subject in almost all sections. Sadievico (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)