Talk:Nope (film)

Muybridge pictures

The animation of Eadweard Muybridge's pictures of galloping horse Annie G. (published as plate 626 in Muybridge's Animal Locomotion in 1887) is used in the movie as illustration of "the very first assembly of photographs to create a motion picture" and the rider is said to be the great (great) grandfather of the Haywoods.

Unfortunately, this chronophotographic sequence is not really "the first assembly of photographs to create a motion picture" and not even Muybridge's first. Information about this concept is not relevant enough for the article, but to set things straight, I'll provide a short explanation here.

Muybridge had already been publishing chronophotographic picture sequences since 1878 –nine years before the Annie G series were published– (see The Horse in Motion). The names of riders and drivers are printed on those cabinet cards: (Charles) Marvin and G.(Gilbert L.) Domm. Their skin colour isn't clear in the original pictures; at this stage Muybridge only managed to record them as silhouettes (Stanford did employ black coachman James Vickers, featured in an 1872 still photograph by Muybridge, but Marvin and Domm were probably not black; the extant detailed press articles of the time would probably have pointed this out). The 1878 series were often viewed in motion in zoetropes soon after publication, and a little while later they were traced anamorphically in paint on glass discs, for projection with Muybridge's zoopraxiscope as part of his lectures on locomotion (starting in 1880). The lectures thus seem to have included the first projected motion pictures based on actual (photographic) recordings of motion (basically a form of rotoscoping). Stroboscopic animation already existed since 1833, projected stroboscopic animation at least since 1847, and stop motion/pixilation (animated posed photographs) since circa 1851/1852, see: History of film technology.

The black rider of Annie G., recorded at a Philadelphia race track in 1885 (in much clearer quality than the 1878 pictures), has not yet been identified. Unfortunately, the pages with notes for these recordings are missing from Muybridge's notebook kept at the George Eastman House library (https://fdiv.net/2015/01/02/who-were-jockeys-muybridges-photographs). Joortje1 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I think some of this media history is valuable to include, probably in #Themes and interpretations, as it is important to the theme of exploitation and underrecognition of black labor in Hollywood. It's probably useful to mention that this is the first really photographic sequence, rather than something like a silhouette, or however it is technically best to phrase it. Pharos (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary is unnecessarily long and poorly worded. Additionally, the alien’s final form does not look like a biblically accurate angel at all. That part needs to be taken out. 75.182.185.45 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Angel does not accidentally get wrapped in the tarp and barbed wire. He does this completely on purpose in order to protect himself. 38.140.6.218 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The plot summary has since been reduced to an acceptable word count per WP:FILMPLOT (i.e. between 400 and 700 words; at the time of my writing this, the word count is 696 words). The general consensus seems to favour referring to the alien's final form as being reminiscent of a "biblically accurate angel", especially since there are multiple cited sources that refer to it as such. And as for Angel being wrapped in tarp and barbed wire, I've removed the word "accidentally". —Matthew - (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to favour referring to the alien's final form as being reminiscent of a "biblically accurate angel", especially since there are multiple cited sources that refer to it as such.

The actual reference listed definitively states that it is NOT a Biblically accurate depiction of an angel.

Furthermore, if you follow the link for Biblical angel the only picture shown does not resemble anything like the creature in the film.

Is there any possible way that you could quote any of the sources for the "general consensus" that it is a Biblically accurate angel aside from the reference listed that disagrees with that consensus, or a link to another Wikipedia page that also disagrees with that premise?

The reference states it is not a Biblically accurate depiction of an angel, but rather "Instead, its ultimate form resembles a jellyfish, squid, or octopus." 2603:90C8:0:C28B:210C:F9A2:459C:28F7 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Genre

One thing we can clearly agree on is this film is a science-fiction horror. But I feel it may fall into other genres, such as neo-western (desert and cowboy imagery galore) and/or thriller. I propose it’s categorized as “epic neo-western sci-fi horror.” This is the most concise, accurate way this film can be described. 172.254.82.67 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that can confirm "Nope" is an "epic neo-western sci-fi horror" film?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm. In addition to the obvious Western imagery within the work itself, these four articles from The Denver Post, MovieWeb, The Review Geek, and the Washington Post all refer to it as an "epic neo-western sci-fi horror" in some capacity. Trqalobaid (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewers may use terms like "epic" to express their impressions of films, though, not to define their genres. "Sci-fi horror Western" is hilariously complicated enough for me—and I'm fond of complication. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey as long as it's considered a neo-Western, I'm happy. Trqalobaid (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

One thing we can clearly agree on is this film is a science-fiction horror. Not sure how this discussion happened without anyone pointing out the Project film guidelines WP:FILMGENRE " the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. " There is a SHOUTING WARNING in the wiki source that thinks genres being mentioned "IN SOME CAPACITY" is somehow enough, and demands that nothing be changed without discussion. Please discuss why the guidelines were ignored. I refer you all back to the guidelines and strongly recommended the extra genres be removed from the lead section and list only primary genre and subgenre, namely "science-fiction horror", which User:Apokryltaros said was the one thing we should be able to agree on. There may be other places such as the "Themes" section where these extra genres and influences could be mentioned but there is no excuse for forced genre bloat into the opening sentence. -- 109.77.206.76 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I also was surprised that WP:FILMGENRE fell through the cracks, but it clearly applies. It generally means only one genre, but certainly not three. I removed neo-western and the SHOUTING WARNING. Shouting it doesn't make it any more true that whispering it. Neo-western should be restored if and only if there is a consensus here to do so, and even then one or both of the other genres need to be removed. The argument that there are many sources for neo-western doesn't make have much meaning because I'm sure the other genres can be backed up with as many or more sources. If I looked I probably could come up with sources for at least two or three more genres, but they don't all belong in the lead. They can be discussed later in the article if they are important, in proportion to the weight they have in reputable sources. The issue here is the "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources," not the opinion of a couple of Wikipedia editors. Sundayclose (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for the thread resurrection. I just removed neo-Western from the lead per MOS:FILMGENRE and in the absence of any clear consensus above. The cited Rolling Stone source is also ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to call the film a Western. I also removed the neo-Western category, though I would not object to a mention in the body that some consider it a neo-Western. If that's done, it would be sensible to restore the category. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • It seems neo-Western was re-added without any sort of further citations or discussion so removing it from lead. Yeoutie (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Themes and interpretations -- Jason Faulkner section

This section is one long barely intelligible run on sentence. 71.105.54.60 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)