Talk:The Human Condition (film series)

message: The intro currently states: "Altogether, the trilogy is 9 hours, 47 minutes long, not including intermissions, and is the longest fiction film ever made." But what about Jacques Rivette's Out 1, which is nearly 13 hours long? Is Rivette's film not fiction? Perhaps the source (an obituary for Kobayashi, written in 1996) which makes this claim for The Human Condition was not aware of Rivette's film, which was not widely distributed until 2015. Anyway, I'm going to add a dubious tag to the line in question; people are welcome to discuss here. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the _dubious_ tag, since it is clearly considered one of the longest films. Heck, Wikipedia's own list lists it near the top. I do think it is slightly dubious, since it is in one sense a trilogy (the sentence I revised strangely embraced this paradox: Altogether, the trilogy is 9 hours, 47 minutes long, not including intermissions, and is one of the longest fiction films ever made.) and as a series of films it is not very long. It is only long when you consider it as a single film, which seems a bit arbitrary (what prevents _House of Cards_ being seen as a single film?). That said, it has clearly come to be seen as a single film by many, so it is not Wikipedia itself that is being dubious/arbitrary. Jun-Dai (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim about the film being the longest fiction film ever made 

message: This summary: "The Human Condition follows the journey of the well-intentioned, yet naïve Kaji who transitions from being a labor camp supervisor to an Imperial Army soldier and eventually Soviet POW. Constantly trying to rise above a corrupt system, Kaji time and time again finds his morals an impediment rather than an advantage." is plagiarised from the criterion collecion website.
This wording on the Criterion site (https://www.criterion.com/films/2106-the-human-condition) "...The Human Condition [...] tells of the journey of the well-intentioned yet naive Kaji (handsome Japanese superstar Tatsuya Nakadai) from labor camp supervisor to Imperial Army soldier to Soviet POW. Constantly trying to rise above a corrupt system, Kaji time and again finds his morals an impediment rather than an advantage."  is recorded as being so by the wayback machine since March 2010. The nearly identical wording used on Wikipedia was added (copypasted) later. Duckwalk71 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, I will add a citation for criterion's page following the summary, but might be good to consider rewriting this from scratch or removing altogether. Some other film trilogy articles have that quick complete plot overview, while others do not. I think the article might benefit from it, but its not necessary Noah Film Preservation (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I just saw this update. A citation isn't enough, if one copy-pastes the exact wording it should be presented as a quote, not as a paraphrase. I've amended the entry to reflect that the wording is drawn directly from the source. Duckwalk71 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism.