Talk:Oldboy (2003 film)

message: "It's strange. Dae-su and Joo-Hwan both address Joo-Hwan as 'sam-choon' which translate literally to "uncle". It could also be some sort of older male relative. (Such as a person's mother's cousin) However that would mean they were either brothers or brother-in-laws. The movie does not specify who is older, because they do not address each other as "hyung". (what a younger guy says to another guy, brother or not, who is older than them by a few years) They might possibly be the same age. However, in many korean people's experience, their dad's friends are called 'ah=juh-shi', NOT 'sam-choon'. Thus there are some possibilities.
1. Joo-Hwan is Dae-su's brother of the same/similar age. Because if Joo-Hwan was older, he would be called "hyung". Likewise If Dae-su was older, Joo-Hwan would call Dae-su "Hyung".
2. Joo-Hwan is Dae-su's friend of a same/similar age. This is most unlikely because he addresses himself as " Joo-Hwan sam-choom", not "Joo-Hwan ah-juh-shi"
3. Joo-Hwan is Dae-Su's brother in law. This is most unlikely due to the formality of how he is addressing Dae-su's wife.
4. Joo-Hwan is a distant relative to Dae-Su. Perhaps a second cousin or cousin's son or something?:
-Mr. SmartyPants
"Actually, Joo-Hawn was Dae-su's friend, not brother.  The word sam-choon (삼춘) in Korean is a term that is often used affectionately between children and close friends of parents." - --Rommely 08:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <S>Yeah, I remember that.  Good job catching it!  Feel free to make edits though.  I will make the change.</S> (see below)  --C S (Talk) 08:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you are correct.  I watched the movie again soon after I wrote the above and it's clear that they are not siblings.  For example, Dae-Su tells Joo-Hwan about what he had seen at school during a conversation that takes place before Dae-Su moves away, and Joo-Hwan asks Dae-Su about his moving; consequently Dae-Su never learns of what happened after Joo-Hwan leaks the news to everyone.  Also, it's apparent in the way they address each other.  --C S (Talk) 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Joo-Hwan Dae-Su's brother?

message: this is an exceptionally written plot summary, IMHO.  whoever wrote this page should take on some of the other movie synopses on wikipedia. Streamless 13:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good synopsis, but far too long. It should be pared down much more. A huge plot summary with every single little point is just unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is essentially a narration of the whole movie, full of spoilers.  Nowhere on the website is there a traditional plot summary, which people who have not seen the movie can look at to get an idea of the movie's plot.--68.239.49.202 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: The plot summary seems to follow-up every single major point in the plot that even reveals the ending. No matter how well it is written, the Plot Summary should not reveal the whole story but merely be what the story is about. The time the author took to write the plot summary is laudable and appreciated by the fans of Wikipedia, but this reveals way too much. This, in my belief, kills the very movie and its story-driven action. I think the author of this page should cut the plot summary down to what is sufficient in explaining what the story is about and not give the whole story away. But then again, this is just my opinion.
The Plot Summary does indeed give away the entire film, which it should not.  It should be a paragrpah or so, according to WP's film template page.  Geoff B 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if anyone cares, but I was googling for a complete plot spoiler and it hit wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised at how well written and complete this one was. I mean, you could argue it's not "encyclopedia-like," but I do appreciate as much information as possible from a wikipedia entry. If you guys DO take it out, however, at least link to a complete plot spoiler afterwards. 164.67.148.161 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plot Summary May Reveal Too Much 

message: "Indeed, upon release, it was proven that Zinda was nearly identical" - source 
"A few Indian films are indeed "remakes" of American films, sometimes even copying the entire film nearly line for line" - source
"Sometimes even the biggest Indian superstars like Amitabh Bachchan are cast in such movies which are exact replica of foreign movies." - source
"Oldboy is one of the first instances in which a non-American film has been remade." - this is total BS.
"Another movie from Hong Kong called "The Eye" was supposedly copied to make an Indian movie Naina." - source
"Famous Indian directors like Rakesh Roshan also copied various parts of "ET" to make a hit Indian movie called "Koi Mil Gaya" but he denies any such allegations. Currently he is about to launch a sequel to this called "Krish" which apparently has got some similarities with Matrix Revolutions. Plagiarism is very common in Bollywood industry and it majorly runs on remakes violating copyrights as the returns are not enough to pay for the copyrights." source.
Sources, and plenty of them, need to be found, or a whole load of 'allegedly's need to be dropped into that whole section.  I'll give it a couple of days and if it's not changed I'll severely trim it myself.  Opinions? Geoff B 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source your claims

message: "Eventually, the rumor grew out of proportion until it involved Soo-ah becoming pregnant. It is not clear whether this did in fact occur,"
I just watched the film, and it seems to be pretty clear that Soo-ah wasn't pregnant, but that she believed she was, and it is stated that Dae Su 'got her pregnant with his tongue' or something like that...there doesnt seem to be any lack of clarity as to whether or not she actually did get pregnant, it seems pretty clear to me at least that she *wasn't*, but believed she was.
We don't really have any way of establishing whether she was or not.  I think the only info we get is from Woo-jin, and he's hardly likely to admit getting his own sister up the duff and sharing responsibility for her suicide.  He prefers to blame Dae-su.  Geoff B 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Pregnancy 

message: what type of gun was used? 69.137.223.153 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun 

message: The plot is WAAAY too large (WAY over the average of I think 900 words per movie [with culturally significant movies usually getting more]), the Zinda controversy is stated twice in two different places and neither of them have sources, the box office section has no sources, in fact, the only place WITH sources seems to be how it won different awards.  In fact, I'll just list what this article needs.
1] Shorten the plot length
2] Provide sources for Zinda controversy
3] Provide sources or just get rid of the 'open interpretation of ending' section
4] The production section seems vaguely like a trivia section, so please provide sources (and put it into prose) or merge with other parts of the article
This isn't a horrible article, it's not necessarily a bad one, it's just put together wrong and unsourced. 72.200.27.179 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be cleaned up 

message: No wonder that the plot is excessively detailed, as it is a copypaste from the IMDB page. The IMDB copyright and conditions of use says this: This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of IMDb.
Is the plot copied illegally?
83.108.42.40 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Excessively Detailed Plot 

message: Not quite sure enough of my French to correct it, but I'm pretty sure that "film" takes the plural - not "noir"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.109.152 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film noirs? 

message: The layout is horrible, and everything about this article is just horrendous. What happened to the last DECENT edit that was added? Why on earth has a musical score been added into the middle of an article and why is everything on single headers? Whoever had the screwed up idea of rewriting or restructuring the article would do best to go away and cry. Shame that in this instance, the "pirahna process" ate this article as live bait.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.154.200 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has quite literally been raped 

message: I've just watched the film and came to this article to better understand this, but it isn't even said here. Right before Woo-jin leaves the penthouse, the tape reproduces Mi-do's saying "you have to know", while having sex with Dae-su, suggesting she already knew it. By the time Woo-jin leaves, he asks Dae-su if they will be able to live knowing about their relationship, which enforces the fact that they both know.
But then, if wouldn't make sense that box when she's enprisioned or Dae-su being hypnotized to forget about it. What do you think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.188.250 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Mi-do know she was his daughter? 

message: People read movies reviews to get an idea as to whether a new movie is worth their money and time to see. Therefore I believe that reviews should never give away any of the surprises that the writer and director intend the viewer to experience -- let alone the ending.
Encyclopedia entries on movies are not reviews. People read them to learn about the movie and what makes it significant. Imagine a review of Bonnie and Clyde that did not mention the ending of the movie and the impact of the final scene! Ditto Henry the Serial Killer. Therefore, I assume someone who comes to Wikipedia is here to learn about the movie in as much detail as possible -- not for a review. In the case of Oldboy that would include revealing who the puppet-master is, why he wants revenge, and the nature of the enigmatic ending.
Forgot to add (71.22.47.232 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia entries vs. movie reviews 

message: The plot synopsis stated that Dae-Su found the 'Chinese' restaurant after specifying that he was fed Mandu (dumplings). Mandu is Korean; is there anything in the movie specifying the restaurant as Chinese? If so it should be changed back, but I'm not entirely sure the Mandu link is appropriate. Googlypoo (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I always assumed it was jiaozi, though other sources do seem to state that it's gun-mandu. I do seem to recall the resturaunt being stated as Chinese, but that could have been the translation. I also seem to recall Chinese characters on the shops he visits, but that could have been Hanja for all I know.--Remurmur (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restaurant - Chinese? 

message: I removed the following:
:It should also be noted that the eating of live octopuses (called sannakji (산낙지) in Korean) as a delicacy exists in East Asia, although it is usually cut, not eaten whole.
as I feel that it is an intentional attempt to mitigate the scenes impact. Given that octopi are treated by scientists globally as 'unofficial vertebrate' given their extremely high intelligence and sensory perception on par with a young human there are entirely different subsets of laws in regards to anything conducted on octopi that may injure or cause distress to it given it's high intellect and sentience. To see a patently absurd attempt at justification would leave the paragraph open to further clarification for context and pointing out that it is illegal in all first world nations to do this for that very reason (ie: to stop people using 'culture' as an excuse for cruelty and bizarre antics. Which is a fair and very valid point.
Rather than trying to balance the POV I feel it is better simply to remove it. The whole 'lolactor prayed for them' is kind of pushing it also. I am open to suggestions on what to do with that. 60.225.64.166 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is stating that the actor prayed afterwards (he did) or this being common in South Korea (it is) NPOV? Your comments indicate a bias on your part.--24.128.144.231 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of possible NPOV statement. 

message: There's an editor Live to Die that keeps removing the one-liner about the 2013 remake from the lead section. Its pretty standard to include mention of remakes in lead paragraphs of the source movies, see for example The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934 film), Scarface (1932 film), The Italian Job, The Thomas Crown Affair (1968 film) and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Is there any reason why that line keeps getting removed? The editor has also been warned multiple times by a few editors on his talk page regarding his "enthusiasm" in this article and the article about the 2013 remake.     Zhanzhao (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of [[Oldboy (2013 film)|2013 remake]] 

message: Hi, people. Recently  added a table here, in Zinda (film), and in Oldboy (2013 film). I wanna dispute its relevance. The table doesn't is self-explanatory (well, there's only a few names but what they represent?); and even if it was a well-made table what's its relevance at all? Isn't prose preferable in this case? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: first of all, remake map has names who played roles of Shinichi Goto from Old Boy Manga (Choi Min-Sik/Sanjay Dutt/Josh Brolin) and actresses who played love interests (Kang Hye-jung/Lara Dutta/Elizabeth Olsen) and character Takaaki Kakinuma are the antagonist played by (Yoo Ji-tae/John Abraham/Sharlto Copley). And the map shows the film chronology plus actors, actresses and the antagonists. And Mr. Yuji is just disputing despite map is for remake. Plus Wanted was also remake of Pokiri it has too character map! Vikramarkudu has also remade in several other languages. And many films so why Yuji is worried for it? Derevation (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, you shouldn't have to explain it to me; the table should be self-explanatory per MOS:TABLE. Second, I'm not omniscient to worry about films I even knew that existed. However, you should know that only because other articles have such tables, this shouldn't have. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake table 

message: I just saw blu-ray version and noticed they cut out the mice-scene? Does anyone else notice this?
Also, I swear before I saw a difference octopus eating scene, like the octopus was smaller... and looked CG... Andwan0 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source/reference for this, you can include it in the writeup like how its done in Blade Runner. You can't just put it in based on what you think you are seeing/remembering though. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The mice scene is in the remake. There is no mice scene in the Korean film. Nor are there any different cuts of the film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version Differences 

message: "Dae-su finds the hypnotist from the prison to erase his knowledge of Mi-do being his daughter, so that they can stay happy together." I suggest rewriting this statement. "Stay happy together" might be misconstrued to mean that they want to be together, when all Dae-su wants is to erase his memory. And why the hell did he track down the hynotist who had caused him so much trouble in the first place? 119.74.93.242 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Hypnosis

message: regarding your reversal of my edit, it is true that the 2013 film is a remake, but it is not notable enough to be included in the lead. The article of the movie itself (Oldboy (2013 film)) even states that "The film was a box office bomb; it had one of worst box office performances of Lee's directing career." For example, Total Recall (2012 film) isn't worth mentioning in the lead of Total Recall (1990 film), because the 2012 film "has negative reviews from critics" and isn't notable. Ben-Hur (2016 film), which the lead states "received generally negative reviews and was a box office bomb" is not included in the lead of Ben-Hur (1959 film). Some1 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake in the lead 

message: The redirect Oldboy (2003 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 18:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Oldboy (2003 film]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]