Talk:Blonde (2022 film)

Correction needed

Plot describes her auditioning for “All About Eve” for the character Nell. This is incorrect. The film she is auditioning for is “Don’t Bother to Knock”. Please correct this mistake. 2603:7000:4B3F:1B5D:E825:B6B1:FB83:57F0 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Whose is the voice of the baby?

I can't find this piece of info anywhere, who spoke for the fetus? Chairmaind2 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Blonde Screenplay

Found a Reddit link to Dominik's 2019 draft of Blonde. Would someone please put in under "External Links"? https://www.reddit.com/r/Sardonicast/comments/rwz8z5/screenplay_for_andrew_dominiks_blonde_not_fake/ 47.152.64.214 (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Typos

Article is currently locked, but misspells “Norma Jean” as “Norma Jeane” in the NC-17 section and “film” as “filmed” in the following section, regarding criticism from Planned Parenthood. 2600:1700:5792:4890:5068:5AD4:F718:E96F (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 October 2022

"There is no evidence that Monroe ever had an abortion, much less forced procedures as it was portrayed in the movie, says historian Michelle Vogel, author of Marilyn Monroe: Her Films, Her Life.[88] "Any talk of pregnancy termination is an assumption on our part. Marilyn loved children and she was desperate to be a mother. Sadly, she never carried a baby to term."[88] It is well-documented that Monroe suffered three miscarriages during her marriage to Arthur Miller; in 1956, in 1957, and again in 1958.[88]"

The middle quote ("any talk ... to term") is not directly attributed towards anyone. It should be clearer that Michelle Vogel said it.

The last statement ("it is ... in 1958") is not an unbiased statement. Datkanooknog (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Additionally, I don't really see any issue here. It is a quotation by Vogel, so it's quite obvious that the words are attributed to Vogel. As for bias, if you're suggesting that we remove the quotation because it is biased, Wikipedia reports from reliable sources. Vogel is a major biographer of Monroe. There's no Wikipedia policy that forbids reporting information from a reliable source (and Vogel is reliable) simply because a Wikipedia editor considers it biased. We are allowed to report reputable opinions. Other opinions in addition to Vogel's are presented. If you think the section is not WP:BALANCED, give us some equally reliable sources that are contrary to what the sources cited state. Sundayclose (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead change

Zoolver (talk · contribs) has been edit warring to force his preferred version ("was criticized as exploitative, sexist, dehumanizing, and anti-abortion propaganda") into the article over the current version ("was criticized as exploitative and unethical"). I'm starting this discussion to find a consensus and stop further disruptive back and forth. Note that Zoolver's version has been removed/changed by multiple different users (1, 2, 3, 4)

my personal take is that the lead should be written in a balanced fashion. the film received mixed reviews (Metacritic exactly 50%), so the writing should reflect that, see WP:WEIGHT. Zoolver's proposed version makes the reception seem worse than it actually is. there is also no need to include emotionally charged buzzwords by biased reviewers with an obvious political agenda --FMSky (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky: Those edits you linked came mostly from IPs and a new user, and most of them had the intention to remove negative criticism from the lead. "balanced fashion" is not the same as ignoring and removing negative reviews/words as you do. You've been doing nothing on this article other than edit warring, removing words, sentences and even an entire section because it goes against your personal opinion on this film or whatever reason you had to do that. You're even using WP:Original Research on the lead by adding words that aren't mentioned anywhere in the article when the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. "emotionally charged buzzwords by biased reviewers with an obvious political agenda"... This is so ironic coming from you! Several people have called those scenes "anti-abortion propaganda", not only critics but also a researcher at the University of California at San Francisco, to the point that the director had to come out and say he doesn't think it is anti-choice (and I was the one who added his quote!). You're clearly biased towards negative criticism directed at this film! You even claimed that Collider is not a reliable source just because one of their critics used a word that you disliked, and then called critics "biased reviewers" when "biased" is exactly the perfect description for your edits on this article (and since when do you get to decide which reviewer is "biased"?), not only on this article since you have the habit of trying to own articles all over Wikipedia and is often engaging in edit wars because someone edit out some shit you wrote and you're always ignoring warnings to stop. Discussing with you is useless and never goes anywhere since you never accept that you're wrong, so I'm not coming back to this topic. Zoolver (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

first of all, edits from IPs and new users aren't "worth less" or somehow not allowed to make changes, so i don't understand this point at all. you should have at least acknowledged that your edits were contentious and discussed them, instead of simply reinstating them. i have also never removed any negative reviews at all. i removed the section about planned parenthood because they are not associated with the him whatsoever and aren't professional film critics, so their opinion on a film isn't relevant. i'm not biased towards negative critism on this film at all (i even added a paragraph how the film is highly polarizing and controversial, and reverted someone who removed critcism 1), i'm tryin to get this article to show the criticism in a balanced manner. this isn't an universally hated film, its a film that has received a mixed reception, so the lead should reflect that. having one positive point (acclaimed performance by lead actress) and 4 highly negative ones (exploitative, sexist, dehumanizing, and anti-abortion propaganda) is not balanced --FMSky (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The term "Biopic"

The movie is labeled as a biopic - a movie dramatizing the life of a particular person, typically a public or historical figure. This is mis-categorization as the information that is portrayed about Marilyn is not proven/fictional. Therefore labeling as biopic makes the movie seem more truthful when in reality it is a fictional story based on a true historical character. HJHSquared (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Biopics have always taken dramatic license, and some take it pretty far. If reliable sources call Blonde a biopic, then Wikipedia should follow suit. I think it's best to think of "biopic" as a nominal genre classification. Same thing with historical epics, which have plenty of dramatic license too. If a RS like NPR calls the film a biopic here, Wikipedia should call it as such too. We can use the lead section to summarize biographical accuracy or lack thereof as detailed in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• If you read past the first sentence you will see "The film is a fictionalized take on the life and career of American actress Marilyn Monroe" --FMSky (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the biographical film genre because it is more of a pure drama film, having very few accurate parts. 21:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by João Cannabrava (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

Remove biographical genre from lead and cats, this film is a fictional story, not a real story, do talkings babies and jfk fellatio scene not ring a bell of fictional film? 2804:7F0:B402:DF34:D9F7:A4DC:B307:30F2 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done see references directly next to "biographical film". Mike Allen 19:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

Add "Category:Films set in psychiatric hospitals" the film shows Marilyn's mother in a psychiatric hospital, Xarizard (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Xarizard (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Blonde (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blonde (upcoming 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Blonde (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Genre

I believe it's more pleasurably readable if biographical film as the only genre.Firefoxhd (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

the film is not that easily categorized to only one genre. i dont see the problem in listing two, we do that do a lot of films --FMSky (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Unneeded rewording"

@FMSky: Basically, when writing an article on Wikipedia, we use reliable sources that explicitly state what we are going to write to avoid WP:SYNTH. We also write in an encyclopedic tone. ภץאคгöร 16:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your current versions sounds a lot worse but whatever

Of course it may sound "a lot worse" to your ears, but as it is clear from the above, that doesn't matter. ภץאคгöร 19:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)