Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once

"Absurdist"

I have removed "absurdist" from the lead sentence. We should keep the genres simple in first sentence per WP:FILMLEAD. The lead later goes into more depth about the genres, including absurdism. Popcornfud (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I have restored it to the WP:STATUSQUO while a consensus is reached, thanks for starting this discussion. While EEAAO definitely has elements of sci-fi, the best descriptor has always been "absurdist" firstly, given the wild "genre-bending" elements of the film. The quoted NYT review points out well that describing it as a martial arts or sci-film misses the heart and true point of the film, which is more aligned with a comedy-drama.[1] Some sources that call it primarily an absurdist film: the BBC, Entertainment Tonight AP News. Given these sources, I would argue that "sci-fi" is far from the primary genre, and that "absurdist comedy-drama" is a short, succinct descriptor for the lead sentence. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:FILMLEAD says to use "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". We shouldn't say it's an "absurdist" film and a "comedy drama" — that's overloading the lead sentence and gets us into diminishing returns fast. What is the primary genre identified by sources? Popcornfud (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I would argue this is case where the number one thing mentioned about it's genre is that it is difficult to define, and comprised of many different genres. The guideline's do advise that (at a minimum), the lead sentences should include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", but looking at other multi-genre films such as Titanic (1997 film), Pan's Labyrinth, or Alien (film)/Aliens (film) and at the sourcing, exceptional cases such as this I believe deserve a (still very minimal) 3-word descriptor. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; those articles shouldn't be stuffed with genres either. The extent of the genre bending in Everything Everywhere is covered in depth in the lead, along with a philosophical notions including absurdism. I vote for simplicity. Popcornfud (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be only for the primary genre. Other genres can be discussed in the lead further down since the "Themes" section goes into more details of the genres, like it should be done in an encyclopedia. Mike Allen 00:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling out OtherStuffExists seems to be kind of missing the point of both my argument and that essay on deletion arguments, which isn't that we should never look elsewhere on Wikipedia to find examples of how well-reviewed articles handled complex situations. Aliens was promoted to a featured article with a 3-word genre descriptor just 5 months ago, but that is just an example, not the full argument. In films that bend genre in ways that are discussed frequently in sources, simply adding one extra word can be the best solution. Going with "simplicity" is doing a disservice to the reader's understanding with marginal benefit at best (cutting down a single word count from the lead sentence). A reader's understanding of the film is best served by "absurdist", and calling the film a "sci-fi" film is a misuse of the term. From that analysis by the NYT, "while the hectic action sequences and flights of science-fiction mumbo-jumbo are a big part of the fun (and the marketing), they aren't really the point. [It is] a bittersweet domestic drama, a marital comedy, a story of immigrant striving and a hurt-filled ballad of mother-daughter love." Hence the simple "absurdist comedy-drama". Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Edwordo13:, @Cakebrains:, Pinging to include users who just made a change related to this discussion.

Keep - Per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. emphasis added. Absurdist as a sub-genre is apt for this film. Kire1975 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

it says "or sub-genre", not "and sub-genre". Popcornfud (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep absurdist comedy drama - the science fiction elements only serve the absurdist theme of the film. My personal preference would be surreal comedy as there aren't that many drama elements in the movie unless you focus on the acceptance of LGBT people. CABF45 (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with this one. The sci-fi elements are part of the film's overall absurdist theme. Surreal comedy could work since there aren't many elements of drama in the film. Edwordo13 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I find "absurdist" used much more frequently than surreal from my searches, so I would still vouch for "absurdist comedy" if drama was cut. But I would also argue that the drama is well sourced and the core of the film. Some examples that show the diversity in what it is labeled, but ultimately led me to "absurdist comedy-drama":

• NYTimes: absurdist sci-fi comedy drama
• Vulture: ...a kaleidoscopic fantasy battle across space, time, genres, and emotions, but it’s an incredibly moving family drama first.
• Vox: multiverse action comedy-drama
• BBC: absurdist multiverse movie... The comedy can be absurd and wildly funny but is also tethered to real fears.
• EntertainmentTonight: absurdist film
• WaPo: absurdist, sci-fi comedy drama
• ArtNet: comedy-drama... absurdist nature
• LATimes: surreal...sci-fi action comedy
• The Guardian: surreal superhero comedy

Cerebral726 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That's just it: "the core of the film" is the very thing we should be after here, not the other stuff. Whatever the primary genre is, just use that. (I'll also note at least one of the sources you list there uses "absurd/ist" more as an adjective than a genre, as in "the comedy can be absurd" and "absurdist nature".) Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep. As per WP:FILMLEAD. Probably the most important aspect, or central theme, of the film. 78.16.238.146 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the general consensus here is to call the film an absurdist comedy, let's just leave it at that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Rule 77 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

NYT quote in the lead

Throast, sometimes your problem seems to be the lead not having enough citations, and sometimes you remove the necessary citations. The NYT quote is written in summary style, that's why it's perfect for the lead:

The New York Times called the film a "swirl of genre anarchy" with elements of surreal comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation.

CABF45 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a regurgitation of genres. We specify genres in the first sentence of the lead. What are they doing in the third paragraph? And no, the NYT critic review of the film does not attempt to summarize secondary sources. Critic reviews are WP:RSOPINION. Perfectly fine to use in the body, but why elevate the NYT review to the lead out of all reviews? Pinging Lapadite, who might want to chime in. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a very complex movie, so I think the first sentence description is not enough for the lead.

The sentence is not a "critic review", the quote helps identify the many genre elements of the film. Do I think it helps the readers know what to expect from this movie? Absolutely.

It belongs in the lead as you had complained about the few references there. CABF45 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about "the few references" in the lead. Apart from the theme sentence, it's looking good now for all I care. The conclusion that the film is a "swirl of genre anarchy" is clearly opinion. If this is about genres and you feel as though the lead sentence does not sufficiently elucidate what kind of a film this is, it should be amended, and any further detail left to the body. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, third party chiming in.

I have to agree with @CABF45 that just having "absurdist comedy-drama film" as the only mention of the movie's genre in the lead summary is selling the film short and is not enough for the lead summary of the article, especially for the average casual page viewer wondering what genre the film is ("comedy", "drama", "romantic", etc. genres should be relatively straightly forward, meanwhile "wtf is an "absurdist" film genre?").

At the same time, I can understand where @Throast is coming from with the ""swirl of genre anarchy" description and how this opinion from the New York Times is best fitted for the "Themes" section of the article.

My compromise/idea is to incorporate/paraphrase the first lines of the "Themes" section into the lead summary to help describe the sub genres/mediums/influences of the movie, but without using the opinionated quite "swirl of genre anarchy"; for reference, here is what I mean (and it has 3 references too):

---

> Everything Everywhere All at Once incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation.

---

Here, we get additional subgenre/influence mentions in the lead summary that helps supplement the just "absurdist comedy-drama" genre bit which would be helpful to the average page viewer, and we don't have the opinionated quote "swirl of genre anarchy"; and both of these bits are expanded upon in the "Themes" section of the article.

What do you two think, cause I feel like this should be a good middle ground. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely keep absurdist comedy drama as the main descriptor of the film. It's been a hard fought compromise (see thread "Absurdist" above). I would add the NYT quote later in the lead just as it was earlier. CABF45 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Duyneuzaenasagae, great compromise. The best solution seems to be to have a separate sentence covering genres rather than incorporating everything into the first sentence. I guess it would look something like this: Everything Everywhere All at Once is a 2022 American film written and directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who produced it with Anthony and Joe Russo and Jonathan Wang. The film incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation. That way, we have it all conveniently in one place rather than scattering genres throughout the lead. In any event, "swirl of genre anarchy" is definitely too colorful and opinionated for the lead, so that should be struck altogether. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Throast only thing now is to figure out where to re-add that compromise in.

---

Your suggestion:

"Everything Everywhere All at Once is a 2022 American film written and directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who produced it with Anthony and Joe Russo and Jonathan Wang; the film also incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation. (and the 3 sources from my above post here)"

The only differences I made to your suggestion was 1) using a semicolon versus a period to connect the lead sentence (with main genre) and the second part (with subgenres), and 2) adding "also" to the "the film...also...incorporates elements...".

---

I originally went back to the much older edits of the article to find out where they put the subgenres section (with the old "swirl of genre anarchy quote" before; though obviously I can remove that quote), and it was originally in the third paragraph of the lead summary, like this:

"Everything Everywhere All at Once premiered at South by Southwest on March 11, 2022, and began a limited theatrical release in the United States on March 25, 2022, before a wide release by Manhattan-based A24 on April 8. The film received universal acclaim for its originality, screenplay, direction, acting (particularly of Yeoh, Hsu, Quan, and Curtis), visual effects, costume design, action sequences, musical score, and editing. Its portrayal of philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as its approach to themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity, have been widely analyzed. The New York Times called the film a "swirl of genre anarchy" with elements of surreal comedy, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, and animation. It grossed over $139 million worldwide, surpassing A24's previous best-ever grossing film, Hereditary (2018)."

---

I like your suggestion of putting it in the first sentence/paragraph of the lead summary more than its original spot in the 3rd paragraph of the lead summary. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the old paragraph is a mess, we don't want to go back to that. Let's go with the first version, but strike the "also" after "the film". I feel it flows better that way. What do you think? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Duyneuzaenasagae, following up to get a firm consensus on the phrasing so we can change the lead accordingly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Throast your suggestion sounds good. I think you would have a better idea on how to clean that up for the live article, so I will leave it to you. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Commenting as I was pinged by Throast. As a concise overview of an article, the lead should not cherry pick any one source's opinion. You can summarize what the general consensus is of the majority of sources, but emphasizing one source's commentary in the lead is WP:UNDUE weight. MOS:FILMLEAD also recommends: "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". Lapadite (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Unrelated last paragraph

The last para of criticism currently reads:

The film's Best Picture Oscar win was mostly praised by the public and industry, but received some criticism, particularly from Cannes Film Festival president Thierry Frémaux, who compared this film's win to the Best Picture win for Parasite

This is wrong, and not what the source says. Per the source (and other references to the same interview), Frémaux wasn't referring to Everything when he mentioned Parasite – as it is an American film. He was referring to Triangle of Sadness and its ineligibility for best international film, when he mentioned that he thought a film like Parasite should not have been eligible for best picture in 2020. – SJ + 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Duyneuzaenasagae: if you reread the quote you'll see it is not a critical response to the subject. By all means find and add critical reception to the article; this is just not an example of it. Please restore the change you reverted :) – SJ + 23:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SSSUUUPPPEEERRR late reply, but I did not see this before; lol thanks. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree here, this is a clear misreading of the source. The first part of the sentence is also unsourced as the IndieWire article does not support the film being "mostly praised by the public and industry, but received some criticism". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's another piece of criticism from the Los Angeles Times about the Best Picture win. Maybe this would be useful. We can mention Frémaux by name but not feature his quote from the other source. HM2021 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the genre...

We should just label it a comedy. One thing that remains certain about this film is that it's quite humorous in nature.
UPDATE (08/14/2023): Also, everyone at Template talk:Infobox film agreed that this article's intro is stupidly long.
—theMainLogan (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC) —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheMainLogan Maybe revert it back as "absurdist comedy-drama" since it has the philosophy of absurdism and surrealism, and some comedic and dramatic elements? DasKlose (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It definitely should be reverted back to that. —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a whole discussion about this on this talk page (right above). The consensus was to keep this in the lead: the film incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist fiction, comedy drama, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, immigrant narrative, and animation. and The film explores philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity. Mike Allen 14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Cut some from Armond White including unnecessary ableism

This article had quoted 109 words directly from Armond White's review, more representation than any other critic has gotten in the article. Additionally, the review represents a minory viewpoint (and is not the only representation of that minority viewpoint) so the long quote was quite clearly UNDUE. Finally, this quote includes some unnecessary ableism. Yes, NOTCENSORED, but it's an unnecessarily long direct quote, so I've substantially shortened the amount quoted including removing the ableism. The quote is now about as long as the next longest quote. Possibly still UNDUE but it's in a better state now. —siroχo 09:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem with that. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Googly eyes

I need someone to add info mentioning googly eyes because there's no mentions of googly eyes in this page. (sorry for bad English) DasKlose (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Done :) MinervaKizyna (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary contains unnecessary analysis

I edited this but it's been reverted, so I guess I'll explain why I edited it (as I disagree with the reversion) - the plot summary contains unnecessary analysis of the themes, e.g. (emphasis mine)

"Evelyn is initially persuaded, and behaves cruelly and nihilistically in her other universes, hurting those around her."

"Evelyn has an existentialist epiphany and decides to follow Waymond's absurdist and humanist advice"

Does labelling of philosophical themes, e.g. nihilism, absurdism, humanism, belong in a summary? I guess the argument can be made for nihilism (which is used colloquially enough in English), but the film doesn't overtly say absurdism or humanism are the philosophies Waymond follows, and it's arguable whether "be kind, even when life does not make sense" is a distinctly absurdist/humanist view (I may as well say "Evelyn decides to follow Waymond's Chinese Buddhist advice"). Whether Waymond is a follower of "humanist existentialism" is analysis of the themes of the film, and not summary of the plot. I think it overcomplicates the plot section and shoehorns European philosophy into it as though it were an explicit part of the film. MinervaKizyna (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that particular philosophical concepts are a central part of the plot, it is helpful to the reader (and other editors have added explicit references in the plot to be accurate about this) to pinpoint key areas in the story where such points come into play. It would be less helpful to leave them out only to be discussed elsewhere (which they already are anyway). The plot is not a word-for-word description of the story, and is does not require the use of the words in the film to describe their effect. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case I can understand how 'absurdist' helps, but I still think 'humanist' is a little too specific - it points to Waymond's worldview as the secular, European belief, where it could equally (in fact, given that this film is about a Chinese family, this may be more likely) be a Taoist, Confucian or Buddhist view. How about something like 'humanitarian' or 'altruistic'? (I'd then also be happy to explain specific takes on that humanitarianism, e.g. the one cited and also some alternative sources I can think of, in the themes.) MinervaKizyna (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the actual consensus version of this which included a reference for humanism (which you had removed). The film is textbook Absurdist and Humanist (and there are many many references to support that, and editors had left refs in the plot to underline that). These are general philosophical terms. Elements of Taoism, Confucianism or Buddism have parts that are Humanist (esp. Confucianism) or Absurdist (i.e. Zen Buddism) etc., but they also contain other things that are not in the film/plot. The philosophical terms are more precise in their meaning. 2001:BB6:5F28:CB00:B11C:F366:F81:4746 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If you look at my edit, you would've seen that I had not removed the reference, I had moved it to the themes (just now edited to fix the duplicate reference you added), alongside other references for alternate interpretations. My point is that humanism refers to a specific Western non-religious belief system, and claiming that the film is explicitly Humanist is excessively specific and Eurocentric.

"Elements of Taoism, Confucianism or Buddism have parts that are Humanist (esp. Confucianism) or Absurdist (i.e. Zen Buddism)"

Again, this is Eurocentric and arguably backwards. They have things in common, but saying that one has 'parts of' the other suggests that one takes inspiration from the other. My edit in fact changed it to the specific part that they do have in common: humanitarianism.

"but they also contain other things that are not in the film/plot."

As does humanism: see from the wiki page "Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.". The entire plot is that the main character understands the world via revelation from a supernatural source, and does not rely on science and reason. The only thing it does have in common with the film is the ethic based on human and natural values, hence why 'humanitarian' may be a better fit.

I can agree that absurdism and nihilism are general descriptive philosophical terms, but Humanism is a much more loaded term, almost always referring to an entire modern Western non-religious belief system. Calling the film and its plot/characters (the cast section also refers to Waymond's worldview as 'humanist existentialism') explicitly Humanist eliminates the Chinese/Eastern perspectives that are incredibly important to the film. MinervaKizyna (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It does come off as a bit much in the text of the body to analyze and assign specific philosophies to each person; a plot section should aim to be descriptive, and it’s a bit of a small jump and a bit unwieldy to list off schools of thought at once. Some of these philosophies also aren’t necessarily in the film; there’s a very strong secularist, anti-religious element to humanism that isn’t reflected well in the film. I do think you both have points that it’s a bit reductive to name i.e. Taoism but also Humanism. I think more description, like humanitarian, and elaborating more on philosophy in the Themes section than in the descriptive-only plot section would be better. GlassBee (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the plot/cast should be descriptive rather than prescribing a specific school of philosophy to the characters. I've moved discussion of humanism and other perspectives to the themes section, and chosen less 'weighty' words to describe the characters elsewhere. If anyone has more citations to talk about the film as humanist in more detail I'd love to see them added to the themes section! MinervaKizyna (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@MinervaKizyna using sock puppets again I see. 31.187.2.40 (talk) 31.187.2.40 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Big Nose" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Big Nose 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/2024 April 2 § Big Nose until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Evelyn Quan Wang character article

I noticed that this article was split/copied off from this article on March 7, seemingly without any prior notice or consensus that is often required per WP:SPLIT unless making a bold split. I don't think anything found there wouldn't be found here, so I'm confused on the splitter's reasoning that was not properly given in the edit summaries aside from the text being contributed to this page. @ICOTEYE, would you like to give your reasoning here?

I'd also like to gather some opinions on if this article should be kept separately from the article or not. Personally, I think this fails WP:FICT since most of the sources I found relates to the film or the actress more than the character, but I might be wrong. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The reception section looks strong, but... the other parts are kind of weak. So maybe borderline keep? Historyday01 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The reception section was copied off from this article with a few changes FYI. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It can be okay to have a standalone article about a fictional character (even if they appear in only one film) if coverage of that character would be too excessive in the film's own article. Generally speaking, supporting characters sometimes get standalone articles if they are noteworthy themselves. This does not necessarily mean they have to be the full focus of a reliable source's coverage. If they get WP:SIGCOV, that is enough. It is more about figuring out scopes and redundancy. A film-centric article cannot cover every single detail about a film. A character-centric article can focus more on details about that character than the film-centric article would. Think of film series articles; we are not going to include all the box office and critical reception details for all films in a series-centric article. We keep the details high-level.

So here with this film-centric article , there should be a light level of detail about the character, saving the fuller detail for the character-centric article. For example, the "Critical reception" here could focus more about the film's general qualities, where the character-centric article could focus more on what critics said about the character and the actor's performance of that character. The challenge with coverage of a film and its main character (as opposed to supporting) is that there is more overlap than with a supporting character. I do agree that the actual splitting and copying is messy, and content in both articles should be appropriately balanced in scope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that the character is independently notable outside the film, which is required for notability. All the information currently in the character article right now can also be found here, because it is merely an article copy-pasted from the film article with no or barely any additional information. Unless individual notability can be shown, I think it should be redirected back to the film article. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)