Talk:Fight Club/Archive 3

message: Looks better now, might get through this time. Vranak
:Definitely will not.  Not even a Good Article status.  Please review the film articles under WP:FA#Media.  This article is nowhere near Wikipedia's standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article nomination 

message: This text has been added recently.
"In 1999, a brazilian med student with mental issues shot to death three people and hurt four other ones in a movie theater while Fight Club was being played. That meant the movie's reputation was severely harmed in Brazil, since part of the press said the excess of violence influenced the killer."
I feel that a). This isn't written in a good style. and b). needs to be referenced. Can the user who added this (200.142.58.19) please do this. Gringotsgoblin 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition to the page 

message: thumb|200px|right|Fictitious Warning
*A fictitious warning appears when the DVD begins playing telling the viewer to stop the "excessive shopping and masturbation" and start living life.
* The film makers originally intended Tyler Durden to recite working recipes for homemade explosives. They later decided against it for the interest of public safety, and fake recipes were used, including the recipe for "homemade napalm". In the DVD commentary with the Director, Norton, Pitt, and Carter; The director stated they showed the original scene with all the steps in it to the Los Angeles police squad in order to determine if it was really the directions on how to make napalm. It was.
* Ed Kowalczyk of the band Live appears as a waiter serving the characters played by Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter in the movie.
* In 2004, plans were made to create a Fight Club musical, developed by Palahniuk, Fincher, and Trent Reznor. Palahniuk said "We all verbally signed on to do it, but that was two years ago, and we haven't heard anything" in a 2006 interview with The Courier-Journal.
Note: Per WP:AVTRIV, this section needs to be cited and integrated into the rest of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: could someone please verify this, I thought it was the boss, just before the group gets together to watch the news regarding the vandalism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatinc (talk • contribs) 10:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Is there anything that indicates the notability of any release date besides the first non-festival release date?  For something like Casino Royale, I would understand the prominence of having both US and UK release dates.  However, this doesn't seem to be the case with Fight Club.  If a case can be made for the notability of British and Australian release dates, I would be fine with including them.  However, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and the Infobox Film template's syntax guide indicates limiting the release date to the primary one if multi-country release dates are not necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the convention fair enough but I'd re-phrase your edit summery in future to 'Initial date only' or it sounds very US centric. --Nate1481 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll do that in the future.  I apologize if you got the wrong impression about my edit. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: I would like to remove this section because I believe it is entirely consisted of original research, in this case, editors' own personal observations of the differences between the novel and the film.  Any film adaptation will have its differences from the source, and I think if we were to explore the differences, only the most important ones should be mentioned, and these would need to be observed by a reviewer and published by a reliable source.  If no one complains, I will import the section here like I did the Trivia section, and hopefully we can restore some content to the article down the road with valid citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a sensible option but would suggest leaving a note saying there are differences with a link to the book --Nate1481 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do about that.  In the meantime, here's the diff so it can be referenced back for anything useful. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between novel and film 

message: Are you still writing the new section for the article? You now could perhaps include those references you have found from movie critics linking the movie to the Unabomber ideas.Maziotis 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section?

message: I've removed a couple of external links, shown below:
* A Metaphilm article comparing the characters to those in Calvin and Hobbes
* Fight Club Clip (Plane Crash Scene)
:Does anyone think that these are encyclopedic for inclusion?  The first one is satirical, and the other one is just an unnecessary video clip. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I am not a contributer to this article, but just reading it, I find that it might be worthy of some sort of promotion. Would the contributers be willing to submit it to Peer Review? Polymathematics 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, not just yet.  I have more to add to Themes (not character-specific), such as violence as a metaphor.  I'd also like to rewrite the awards into prose and expand on reviews some more.  Maybe by next week? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Feel free to nominate yourself whenever you're ready. Polymathematics 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review?

message: This Google News Archive Search seems to have instances of fight clubs starting up at Brigham Young University.  I'd like to explore this phenomenon more to see where else such instances might have taken place.  The information could be part of the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to revisit this... I researched these incidents, and they weren't influenced by Fight Club.  However, the media did give these groups the name of "fight clubs" based on the recent release of the film at the time.  So it doesn't seem appropriate to incorporate this into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual fight clubs 

message: The following awards were also nominated:
* the 2000 Blockbuster Entertainment Award for Favorite Action Team (Brad Pitt & Edward Norton)
* the 2000 Brit Award for Best Soundtrack
* the 2000 Costume Designers Guild Award for Excellence for Costume Design for Film - Contemporary
* the 2000 Sierra Award from the Las Vegas Film Critics Society for Best DVD and Best Editing
* the 2000 MTV Movie Award for Best Fight (Edward Norton vs himself)
* the 2000 Golden Reel Award from the Motion Picture Sound Editors, USA for Best Sound Editing - Effects & Foley
* the 2000 Entertainment Weekly Film of the Year Award for Special Effects
* the 2000 Online Film Critics Society Awards for Best Actor (Edward Norton), Best Director, Best Film, Best Film Editing, and Best Screenplay, Adapted
* the 2000 Political Film Society Award for Democracy
What is the best criteria to determine what specific nominations would belong in a film article?  It's apparently that Fight Club was not recognized at all by the most prestigious awards (Golden Globe, BAFTA, etc), so it seems even more unnecessary to indicate "nods" from lesser awards.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditch the awards with no articles. There's no shame listing the others since they're notable awards. –Pomte 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it'd be best to incorporate the awards that have articles as prose, or as a list? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prose if there is enough content and it can be done without awkward/repetitive sentences, which is less likely. A list presents them in a neater and better readable way. Featured articles like Firefly (TV series) have lists, though it's harder to tell if the other ones had lists while they were nominated for FA status. Fight Club doesn't have enough to need a table like at The Office (US TV series). –Pomte 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and nominations 

message: Although the narrator is nameless in the film when you put closed caption subtitles on he is listed as "Jack:". I put this on the article but it was removed. Should we possibly create a triva section for this film and add it in there? Daveuk07 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, we should avoid trivia articles.  They don't usually have encyclopedic content.  I don't think that the closed captioning saying "Jack" is that important; as I recall, the screenplay for the film had the name "Jack" for the sake of simple identification, even though the narrator is never called that in the film.  I think it's more relevant to mention that his lack of name shapes his everyman persona. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as well as prevent the audience from deciphering his twin-personality origins until the proper moment. —ScouterSig 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Jack's neglected presence in this article. The book article Fight Club has more mention of Jack from the Reader's Digest scene. I'll look for sources in due time. –Pomte 03:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrator name 

message: From the Christian Science Monitor: "One of the film's supporting actors said in an interview that If the kids at Columbine high School had a Fight Club to express their anger..." Anyone know something about this quote? –Pomte 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure.  The keyword in that quote is if.  From what I read, there wasn't any connection between Fight Club and the incident.  I came across assumptions in some citations that Fight Club was delayed because of Columbine, but it wasn't proven.  Maybe it's true, but the reason I found that Fight Club was delayed was for scheduling reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbine 

message: Two of the images need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationales have been added.  I cleaned up the rationales for the other two as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: I've been watching the article grow well and prosper for some time, but the lead has yet to summarise the article. Alientraveller 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do today.  I was hoping to add more thematic material and detail about production in the coming month before writing the lead paragraphs, but I guess I'll go ahead and put something descriptive together. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a shot, though I don't think I summarized it as best as possible.  I wanted to avoid any suggestions about the film's twist, so I couldn't detail too much of the process.  Plus, I think the stuff that I hope to add soon about the controversial production behind the scenes would help add to it.  If anyone thinks they can improve, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll mess with the leads... and my subpage still has stuff to put into the article.  Just should be on vacation right now :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I've failed this for GA, as it's been on hold for more than 7 days.  Please renominate if you think the issues are addressed.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up.  The issues still need to be addressed, mainly the thematic elements.  I'll re-nominate it when I finally add it in, and address the recommended fix for the lead as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issues should be addressed, but I've set up a couple of peer reviews to get more independent perspectives on this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: I know it's a step back with VHS, but I have a special edition fight club VHS with additional footage etc, possibly worth a mention. - The case says "133 minutes plus special features: "On location" making of, Music clip, Behind the scenes footage, Deleted scenes. Peter 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Edition VHS 

message: The theme section currently states: "Fight Club parallels Rebel Without a Cause by probing into the frustrations of the people that live in the system.  First of all, the source citation doesn't say that.  It says, "Tyler is enigmatic, nihilistic, wildly unpredictable — a rebel with many causes, including pissing in the soup of the diners he serves while working part-time as a waiter."  This statement should be removed from the theme section unless a better source is found. —Viriditas | Talk 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik informs me that the  source is accurate, but the link only displays an excerpt. —Viriditas | Talk 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes: Rebel Without a Cause 

message: "The two men establish a club for men to express themselves through fist fights, eventually evolving into countercultural missions."  I wouldn't call it "expressing themselves"; it's more like male bonding on the surface, and this was merely for initiation into the inner order.  And they weren't engaged in "countercultural missions", the term isn't used that way; it's properly termed shenanigans at first, although that turns into outright, radical revolution by the end.  In fact, it's interesting to note that the men were not part of a counterculture, but were members of the working class. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't members of the working class form a counterculture by clashing with norms? A hybrid sort of work-for-the-man-by-day, vandalize-their-culture-by-night ordeal. The terms you mention do fit better though. If you can improve the lead any further, please do. –Pomte 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: "The idea that he has to die is the view subscribed to by those with a morbid fascination with death- a condition that is in itself a mental disease for which they should get treatment"
This line seems odd could it be a missed piece of vandalism?
: Where are you getting this from? –Pomte 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: Sorry about forgetting to pass it over a week last time. Lead's fine now, in strong shape like the whole article. Alientraveller 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: From the director in Film Comment: "We had tons of little rules about Tyler. Tyler is not seen in a two-shot within a group of people. We don't play it over the shoulder when Tyler gives him an idea about something that's very specific, that's going to lead him. It's never an over the shoulder shot, it's always Tyler by himself."  Feel free to correct the wording to fit this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shots applied 

message: Why is there no reference at all of the subliminal picture of a penis the second before the end credits come on? I think it's relative as a Tyler-lives-on kind of thing. Would it be appropriate to make mention of the shirt Tyler wears at the end with all the porno all over it? It's probably not right for the article, but I don't know the director mentions it in the commentary, and how Fox said they're going to have to do something with it like blur it for the trailer. At least the penis thing should be mentioned in the article. It's almost as important as the other 4 subliminal flashes during the feature. ChesterG 08:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any attributable sources about the subliminal image are welcome.  I haven't really found anything beyond the occasional reviewer's comment on the scene; it's seemed more like an Easter egg, from what I can tell.  If you can provide any coverage, please do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is right. There is a penis just before end. --89.142.133.195 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To revisit this, I swear I came across something that mentioned this.  I don't know if it was from the director or an academic study.  I'll have to track it down, but with the real-world context, this could be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  penis 

message: if this is considered a "good" page. Chegis 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I contributed a lot of the content in the article, but I am looking to add academic studies to the article.  There's actually been quite a few ranging across different subjects, and it would be good to have that critical analysis section in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Weird, not sure what happened.  Thanks for the fix, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone should submit this page to that "featured article" thing. 

message: *Todd Doogan interviews director David Fincher
*Bill Hunt interviews DVD producer David Britten Prior
Interviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: *School of hard knocks
Reviews to utilize. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: I'd be inclined to start by trimming down the article's lead.  It's far, far too long, and contains an odd mixture of information, much of which (e.g. production details) would be better off elsewhere.  I'll have a go myself if I find the time.  Cheers, --Plumbago 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor considered the production paragraph to be particular "meh".  I guess he was right. :)  I'll try again to rewrite it, but how should I usually structure the section in terms of major points and minor points?  I probably tried to write it chronologically in a very compressed manner.  This article is probably one of the more extensive film articles, so I wasn't sure how to ensure that the lead section can serve to be a concise overview of the article.  Ideas would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at all!  It's constructive criticism.  I suppose I felt the need to cover the extensive Production section as there are very few film articles on Wikipedia with as much detail as I've found for Fight Club.  It was just a challenge to summarize the section because a lot of it are compilations of factoids.  If I try to be ambiguous, it's too vague (like duh, all/most cinematographers help out with lighting).  If I try to be detailed, it's too unnecessary for the lead section (like the 300 scenes/200 locations).  I'll have to see about addressing these concerns later, as I have some real-life priorities to address at the moment.  I appreciate you taking the time to comment on the lead!  If you weighed in on the rest of the article, that would be appreciated, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To this untrained eye, beyond a couple of minor language fixes, the rest of the article looks just peachy; it's the lead that needs the most attention. The flow of the article is good, in terms of the chronology of development and production and that unquantifiable quality, "feel". The only other section which could maybe do with some trimming is the plot summary; I reckon it could stand to lose a hundred and fifty words and a couple of slight lapses into interpretation. Do you want me to take a quick run at that? You can always revert if you think I've removed too much. Best regards, Steve T  • C 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was actually planning to revise it before the future nomination.  I wrote the Plot section a while ago, and I was aiming to re-word it more concisely.  Give it a shot! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trimming is very much appreciated!  I am planning to introduce an Interpretations section, which will most likely be its own article, Interpretations of the film Fight Club which I'm developing here.  I'm focusing on the film because the novel's article Fight Club already covers thematic notions, but perhaps it can be expanded to encompass both in the future.  Literature and cinema won't always have the same interpretation, even if they're the same plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an impressive list of reference material you've got there; I wish I had the time to be able to devote so much effort to projects like that (my son sees to it that I don't). Good luck with it, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need a fresh pair of eyes on anything. Steve T  • C 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Did no one else notice two instances of Tyler Durden flashed on the screen in a red leather jacket? Before the scene in the airport when Brad Pitt crosses paths with Edward Norton, there are two flashes of Tyler Durden.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zion007 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fight Club (film)#Cinematography: "Durden is also present in single frames of the narrator's scenes before the narrator actually meets Durden,[11] appearing in the background and out of focus, like a 'little devil on the shoulder'.[15] Regarding these subliminal frames, Fincher explained, 'Our hero is creating Tyler Durden in his own mind, so at this point he exists only on the periphery of the narrator's consciousness.'[24]"  That what you mean? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here are the 5 frames found in the film if anyone needs them; http://ticpu.net:8080/~jerome/pics/fight_club I should also warn you the fifth picture is the last frame from the film which consist of male genitals. TiCPU (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't know if there is room to include it in the article, not to mention that it has the time stamps on it.  If we include a screenshot, we should use one without the time stamps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just though that instead of typing it in text, it would be easier to take it directly from the media player, but I can get you pictures without them. TiCPU (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subliminal Imagery 

message: I am adding this article to FAC procedure, it is one of the best articles I have seen on wikipedia in months.  --Have a nice day. Running 00:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have withdrawn the nomination... (I would love to help Erik with the article, but I don't have much time for that :-( )--Have a nice day. Running 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article candidate 

message: I just fixed a few spelling mistakes. Nothing major.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.35.49 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed stuff 

message: While another editor and I agreed some time ago to mention Zerzan in the article, I feel that after re-formatting the "Critical reaction" section, John Zerzan is now the only person who mentions the film in passing compared to all the figureheads in that section.  Janet Maslin of The New York Times, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, Jay Carr of The Boston Globe, David Ansen of Newsweek, Richard Schickel of Time, David Edelstein of Slate, Jeff Vice of the Deseret Morning News, and feminist author Susan Faludi all devote an entire article to the film.  Whereas Zerzan only mentions it in passing toward the end of a 500+ word essay (online copy of the reference in the Wikipedia article): "And it is even showing up above ground, in films like Matrix and Fight Club..."  Considering that this sparse mention contrasts the full coverage provided by the other figureheads I mentioned, I think that the sentence is undue weight and should be removed from this specific section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at my subpage and see if there's any possible themes.  I'm not sure about the ones you mentioned specifically, but there's masculinity and consumerism in most of these resources.  It'd be better off in a "Interpretations" section rather than the "Critical reaction" since Zerzan's mention isn't really a critical reaction but more like commentary of long-lasting impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This does seem, unlike the other items in the section, to be somewhat of a passing reference.  Further, I'm unconvinced that Zerzan's view represents a significant point of view.  He's just this guy whose main notoriety stems from his befriending of a mass murderer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Zerzan 

message: HORRIBLE Plot Description!!!
:WP:SOFIXIT. скоморохъ 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HORRIBLE 

message: You can see '7 Years in Tibet' is playing in a theatre before Marla gets on the bus. It's also a Brad Pitt movie. ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.10 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but do you think it really belongs in an encyclopedic article?  It's not a very important detail, and I'm sure that it already has a fine home at the film's trivia page on IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 Years in Tibet

message: In this article, as well as the Edward Norton article, Edward Norton's character is described as nameless, or simply called the narrator. According to the official website (although its not too clear), the characters name is 'Jack'. I changed one instance from 'the narrator' to 'Jack', I'm not sure if the whole article should be reviewed and/or changed? Fionaalison (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Fight Club (film)#Writing: "The narrator was written to be nameless in the film, although he is identified in the script as Jack."  In the context of the film, he's never truly identified, though it has probably been easier for him to be referred to outside the film as "Jack".  I think it's appropriate, at least within the boundaries of the Plot section, to reflect that he is just a nameless narrator. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with Erik. You'll have to supply a source for that, as it goes against all the previous sourcing and consensus. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack 

message: I've added a quote box listing the rules of fight club after finding a citation that mentions the rules as one of the most quoted monologues in cinema.  What do other editors think of this?  Is the quote box too much?  Is there another way to present the information? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's anything people recognise/remember from the film, it's at least those first two rules. Any section on the film's cultural impact would be incomplete without referencing them in some way, and a quote box seems like the best choice to me too. Steve T  • C 08:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, what about the formatting of the quoted monologue?  I get the feeling it wouldn't be acceptable per WP:DASH.  Maybe I could copy how the English subtitles of the DVD write it... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the dash would definitely be commented upon by certain unnamed parties when it comes to FAC. How about simply replacing the dash with a colon? How does the DVD present them? Steve T  • C 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to take a look.  I copied the quote from elsewhere online, so the particular formatting may not be accurate.  I think it's pretty safe to say that "fight club" remains lowercase; all the evidence points to this formatting in both book and film.  I'll fetch the DVD after this weekend to make the appropriate changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules of fight club 

message: Edward Norton states in the DVD commentary that the film had no intentions to portray anything homosexual, and that he didn't understand why the gay rights groups were trying to paint it that way.  Quit trying to turn this into a gay thing just because there is a guy taking a bath.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.245.100 (talk • contribs) 
:Relax. There's no attempt here to "turn it into a gay thing", whatever that means. It's an analysis. And as it's one which stems from the intentions of the makers, it's relevant to the article. Steve T  • C 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What the creator of an artistic work intends does not necessarily matter.  Though the creator may intend a particular interpretation, outsiders can provide their own interpretations of that work.  I would suggest reading the article intentional fallacy.  There are multiple academic studies addressing the themes of masculinity as well as other themes like temporality and spatiality.  There is still critical analysis to come about all of these themes.  We report all reliable interpretations neutrally.  You and others are welcome to disagree with what others interpret or even how the director wants you to interpret.  The article's just presenting the various views and letting the readers surmise their own conclusions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homoerotic" analysis 

message: I recently made this change. Per MOS:QUOTE: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."  I've maintained the link by wikifying the subsequent use of the term. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works.  Thanks, Viriditas. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Over on the List of fictional anarchists there has been movement to try and add Tyler Durden to the list on the basis that reviews for the film described the character as such.  Unfortunately, none of these citations referred to source material, and so Durden is still technically not admissible.  However, it may be useful to reference this interpretation in the critical reception section.  Here are the three citations provided.  I hope an editor who is more familiar with this article will know how best to integrate this information. --Cast (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who came up with the above references, I think we may want to weigh their reliability given that this article is shooting for FA. I'd probably prefer to wait for stronger sources in order to say anything substantial about anarchism. Could be enough for a statement like "Durden's ideology has been interpreted as having elements of fascism, anarchism, nihilism etc." though. Skomorokh 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be substantial coverage about Tyler Durden's role at my interpretations subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of Tyler as an anarchist 

message: The article describes the main character as a nameless narrator. However, according to the back of the DVD cover, the narrator's name is "Jack". 
Norton stars as Jack, a chronic insomniac desperate to escape his excruciatingly boring life. 
Maybe he should be referred to in the article as Jack, not The Narrator?
117.20.67.250 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The narrator is not explicitly identified as Jack in the film; he is intended to be nameless.  See the end of the first paragraph in Fight Club (film)#Writing.  For purpose of the plot, he is identified as the narrator, and for the sake of consistency, is thereafter referred to as such.  We've had previous discussions if you look above this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you can find a reliable source that interprets the significance of this recurring theme, we could see about working it in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Narrator 

message: i was watching fight club, and towards the end it had a weird flicker, so i went back in slo-mo and there is a picture of a penis! why isn't it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.200.243 (talk • contribs) 
:Probably because it lacks decent real-world coverage from a reliable source, and is really nothing more than an in-joke. Maybe if a decent secondary source could be rumbled up, it could be included (at a push), but I personally don't see a need for it. Steve T  • C 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Steve, there does not really seem to be a need for it.  It's not related to the overall plot of the film, and it's more of a small detail referring to Tyler's porn-splicing duties to tease the audience at the conclusion.  I have not seen any coverage about the frame that does not mention it more than in passing, so there does not really seem to be a spot in the article for it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  penis in one frame 

message: Jared Leto is not mentioned in the article. 89.146.79.216 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't have a starring role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jared Leto 

message: What about this version?
Fight Club (2006)
Director: Vikram Chopra
Written By: Vikram Chopra, Sohail Khan, Mayur Puri
Music: Pritam Chakraborty
Choreography: Bosco, Cesar, Remo
Starring: Sohail Khan, Zayed Khan, Dino Morea, Aashish Chowdhry 
Yes, there is dancing and rampant consumerism in this version.
Tim Chuma (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there soap? Seriously, don't worry about it. That film already has an article. All the best, Steve T  • C 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's covered in the disambiguation page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bollywood version? 

message: The article currently claims that Tyler is not pictured in over the shoulder shots, which is simply wrong.  Roughly 36 minutes into the film, after the line "Can I be next?" the camera swivels into a shot over the narrator's shoulder.  This seems to be mentioned elsewhere in the old copyedit discussion.  Perhaps it needs to be clarified that it applies only to scenes prior to the narrator actually meeting Durden.  However, that I think Durden is only in the opening scene (and the 1-frame snippets) prior to that, so it seems to be a weak claim.  A better one might simply be that Durden is not included in any two-shots or over-the-shoulders in the opening scene.  However, I this is also simply wrong, as the opening scene contains a shot of the narrator's face with Durden walking away (ironically, positioned over his shoulder).  The only claim that I can see being plausible is that Durden's face isn't show during the opening scene.  This is far, far removed from 'no two shots or over the shoulders (in the whole film)' which is the way it stands now.
Tofof (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the section to be a little clearer. It's not that there are no over-the-shoulder shots, but that there are none in scenes of a specific nature. As per Fincher: "We don't play it over the shoulder when Tyler gives him an idea about something that's very specific, that's going to lead him." Hope this clears it up. Steve T  • C 09:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over the shoulder 

message: "Durden is also present in single frames of the narrator's scenes before the narrator actually meets Durden...."
Is this referring to when you see like a split second of Durden before him and the narrator actually meet? I came here looking for an answer, so if anyone answers, thank you!......I know this sounds vague, if only there was screenshot of what I'm talking about....
75.72.213.199 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what it means. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from reader's POV 

message: I do not think that the film infobox needs to mention the novel's author, and for a couple of reasons.  First, it is not an attempt to suppress Palahniuk's good name; he and his work is identified in the "value-added data" of the lead section, where the fields in the infobox are more focused on the basic details of the film.  Secondly, I know that other film articles have listed the source materials' authors in the film infoboxes, but the presentation has always been awkward, using boldface again after the bolded field title or clarifying the separation with parentheses (e.g., "(screenplay)").  Unless there is a better solution, it is more functional to avoid such pushing a square peg into a round hole. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this not the format normally used? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more about editorial preference, and I've tried to provide a couple of substantial arguments about why they should not belong.  You'll see these more often than not, Darren... maybe I'm just trying to buck the trend?  I don't think that such details fit, the way the infobox is set up.  We can see the author of the source material, but not the source material itself, which contributes to the unorthodox fit.  In your example, we see the author's name, but we have to refer to the lead section to get the title, anyway.  I believe that it would be best to clearly write out such information in the lead section since there is a most comfortable fit there.  What do you think?  Feel free to disagree. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this edit, I think that this is too much of an "easter egg" that could be either a link to the novel article or the Fight Club article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just thought that the way that we approach the writing= field has been akin to trying to put a square peg in a round hole.  I know that it is pretty common to do this with film articles, but I've never been gung-ho about how we try to sub-categorize in a field that really should be text directly tied to the field.  I guess my thinking was that on one hand, it's not enough clarification to just say the source material's author, yet when you try to work in the source material through a wiki-link, you run into awkward linking.  I thought to cut the Gordian knot some time ago by just having the screenwriter (though David Fincher should be added since it's cited that he was involved).  I'll concede the matter for now, but at the eventual FAC process, I'll ask for input.  Disagreements like these are tricky to resolve since it revolves around a relatively small formatting issue that has little room for middle ground. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel's author in Infobox Film 

message: The film, directed by David Fincher, follows a nameless protagonist (Edward Norton)
I realise that he isn't referred to by a name, until very late in the movie to preserve the twist, but in his internal monologue he refers to himself as Jack. e.g. "I am Jack's smirking revenge."  Does this still count him as a nameless protagonist?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daff42 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For purposes of describing the film on a basic level, I don't think it would count.  The "Writing" section says that in the film, he was intended to be nameless, though in the script, he was identified as Jack.  I think it would be a little too confusing to suddenly switch from "the narrator" to "Jack" just because he started referring to himself as such.  Also, it could be argued that he is not really Jack, since he references "Jack" and "Jill" from the Reader's Digest he found in the Paper Street home. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always found that curious, however. The actual names in the Reader's Digest articles were "Joe" and "Jane", some of which were published later as I Am Joe's Body. I wonder why, if the reference was based on RD, that the name wasn't use - copyright problems with "He is Joe's lawyer"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nameless protagonist 

message: Is there any reason why nobody has proposed this for an FA? Its an excellent film article I think   The Bald One      White cat  21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was promoted before, but as the primary contributor, I personally requested to hold off on the candidancy.  While I think the film article is in great shape so far, I still believe that it needs to be comprehensive.  There are a lot of themes to be written about, especially those from people other than the filmmakers (see intentional fallacy).  I have a user page full of resources to use, and I really do hope that I get around to adding these themes over the holiday break.  I want to raise the bar, so to speak. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't "Where Is My Mind?" by the Pixies is also played in the movie, at the end? Maybe you could expand the music score section a bit. Apart from that, great article, thanks a lot! Thallium81 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the song.  I have wanted to add it to the "Musical score" section with a reason why the song was chosen, but I have not found any reliable source with an explanation.  I am not sure what else could be added to the section.  The track listing did not strike me as very encyclopedic, since it can be found at shopping websites.  I think that track listings belong better when they provide accessibility by linking songs and musicians.  Obviously, the Dust Brothers is the primary composer here... and thanks for the compliment about the article!  Still more work to be done, though! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: An editor is wanting to add What Would Tyler Durden Do? to the film article's "Cultural impact" section because the blog is popular.  I argue that the blog is not popular because of the blog's title, but because of the blog's content.  Thus, there is only a tangential relationship with the film, and it most definitely is not an indicator of the film's popularity, but rather the general popularity of gossip blogs in the past few years. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely see Erik's perspective on this one. My overriding feeling however is that the name of the blog is so inextricably connected to the film and this connection is a primary reason for the blog's popularity. There are obviously thousands of gossip blogs out there and content is a key differentiator. But the title of this blog, its play off of the character of Tyler Durden, is why I think it truly went viral. It's just such a catchy name - completely apart from the content. BigBrightStars (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Would Tyler Durden Do? 

message: The article states:
Tyler Durden's recitation of the rules of fight club is considered one of the most quoted monologues in cinema....
Sorry, but that's absurd.  People quote the first lines of it, yes.  But have you ever heard anyone (other than a fanatic devotee of the movie) quote the entire thing?  
There are some monologues that are quoted in their entirety -- Orson Welles' lecture about Renaissance Italy and Switzerland in The Third Man, for example.  This isn't anything like that. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Full quote from citation: "Key scene: Rules of Fight Club. The words came from novelist Chuck Palahniuk, but set to Fincher's prowling camerawork and spoken by Brad Pitt... it's become one of the most quoted monologues in cinema."  I somewhat agree with what you say, but I hate to cite personal experience over a secondary source. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monologue "most quoted"?  Not. 

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fight Club (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: Pass===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Pass

message: The phrase "homoerotic overtones" is repeated throughout, it really needs its own section and better explanation/discussion. These overtones are lost on majority of the audience,
and are mostly discussed by LGBT film critics and university professors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.151.193 (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think the scene where Tyler and Jack leave Lou's Tavern for the first time and discuss Jack's staying at Tyler's house was subtle? I imagine anybody who knows the word 'homoerotic' would attach it to that discussion. Uucp (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Hello, the talk page is intended for discussion on how to improve the article, not discussion about the film in general.  The scene mentioned in the article was intended to be homoerotic by the director, and it is cited accordingly.  There is no information I've come across to suggest that the filmmakers intended for the fight scenes to be homoerotic.  However, there may be interpretations about the homoerotic nature of the fights -- one of the "Further reading" items at Interpretations of Fight Club likely has something. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homoerotic Overtones 

message: Editor  added the  template without providing an edit summary and marked his edit as minor.  I contacted him on his talk page asking if he planned to make a statement justifying the template's addition, and he blanked the page without a response.  Since non-free images were added to this article based on careful consideration, the template was unhelpful in instructing why these considerations should be dismissed.  I've removed the template, and I invite editors to comment on the use of the article's non-free images at its FAC page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with the removal of the template; it wasn't particularly helpful, given that—no matter the final determination of the images' suitability—each one at least asserts the case for fair-use inclusion. Steve T • C 19:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to remove it myself, but was waiting to see Nua's response to your inquiry. Any issues with the images can be brought up one-by-one at the FAC. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:NFimageoveruse 

message: An editor added a hatnote at the top of the article, linking to Fight Club and Fight Club (disambiguation).  WP:HATNOTE says that one improper use is disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous.  For example, Fight Club is an article name that is ambiguous and warrants the hatnote that exists there.  Readers would not have arrived incidentally at this article looking for a topic other than the film.  For this reason, I removed the hatnote. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote