Talk:Observe and Report

Controversial sex scene

Editing conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Observe_and_Report&diff=284071657&oldid=284062716

How do we solve this? Sunnan (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jackieboy87 wrote "Revert- article cited merely lists others' opinions of the scene and does not draw a definitive conclusion one way or the other." but we obviously read/interpret the article in question differently. It says "She's way too wasted for her yelling at Ronnie to mean anything." Sunnan (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jackieboy87's recent edit is the way to go: keep the plot summary strictly to the basic facts (they had sex, she was very drunk/barely coherent), and keep the "was-it-or-was-it-not rape" discussion in its own separate section. Stating flat-out in the plot summary that the scene constituted rape is a very loaded assertion that is better suited to its current section discussing the various third-party opinions on the scene. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling it sex is sort of controversial, too. Maybe the sentenced can be rephrased somehow to be less loaded from either point of view. Sunnan (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The writer of the article didn't say "She's way too wasted for her yelling at Ronnie to mean anything", the article is quoting someone else's opinion of the movie. I highly doubt we should be inserting the opinions of those who are in no way involved with the film into the plot section. Also, for it to be rape, it has to involve sex. The definition of rape is "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person".[1] --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IT'S A FUCKIN MOVIE. It's only controversial if you're so messed up in the head that you confuse it with reality. The only people who find it controversial are 3 people in the entire world. It's not worth mentioning.

Removed the word 'consensual' from the plot description. Legalities aside, there's no need to editorialize in the plot summary. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that rape is a terrible thing. That said, I don't think the situation presented in the movie clearly falls under the label. In particular, at one point he stops having sex with her and she specifically tells him to keep going. She's gives consent, though she's obviously inebriated. Either way, it's a comedy- I submit that the word rape be removed.BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the edit war might be starting up again on this page regarding the sex scene; I reverted yet another change from 130.91.163.185 who has changed this text before . I didn't post any kind of warning on the IP talk page because I ahven't the foggiest idea what would be appropriate. I agree with the above "just the facts ma'am" idea, leaving the interpretation of the scene to the viewer. I'm wondering if we shouldn't ask for semi-protection for the page. Thoughts? Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone made this point above, but referring to it as merely a "sex" scene is no less neutral than referring it to a "rape" scene. Also, in the "critical reception" section, there is no one quoted who says that it *wasn't* date rape. If there is nothing quoted advancing that viewpoint, then I don't see how there is any need to be "neutral." Even the Rolling Stone article quoted admits that it was date rape, but just says that we are actually supposed to disapprove of Ronnie's character. Relefo (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "sex" does apply to rape (including date rape). I say this as someone who DOES view the scene in question as being a variety date rape. But it is not neutral at all to refer to it as such given that there are so many different opinions on the scene and the actions of both characters involved. Reverting as per the consensus displayed here. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's something to consider - if people keep suggesting the change (and in case you were wondering, no, it wasn't me), then perhaps there is not as much consensus as you think. What about something like "arguably non-consensual sex scene". Without a modifier, merely calling it "sex" implies consent (when you hear that two people "had sex" rape does not even enter your mind, does it?), and thus implies a judgment by the author as to the controversy. Relefo (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "sex" implies consent TO YOU. To me your parenthetical example is moot because of context in the rest of the sentence. The article has provided the context that is the background of the public debate on the scene. We've clearly indicated the actual facts in the plot summary (that she was semi conscious, regardless of her words at the time) and left it up to readers to make their own moral judgments. We've noted that the scene is controversial (in fact controversial is our modifier that you feel we lack in the article) in the reception section when bringing up the reviews that going into more detail. Here's something to consider; perhaps the fact that people are suggesting the change has less to do with a lack of consensus than a strong feeling on the part of those editors about the topic in question and the scene specifically. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be the least POV of our options. 'Sex' does not imply consent. Geoff B (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's what I meant (only stated much more clearly and briefly). Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it implies consent to some people, then it is not neutral and should be changed. That's the last I will say, as I think you are unlikely to agree. By the way, I was trying to be respectful and polite, particularly as a newcomer; I hope I did not come off as otherwise. I perceive some snark in your response, and I think it is unnecessary. Relefo (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the latter half of your message is directed at Milhanna or myself. I will say this has been a lot more mature than some of the downright moronic arguments (not discussions at all) that happen on some talk pages. I meant no snark by any of my comments. Welcome to Wikpedia. Geoff B (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While I didn't intend to sound snarky, it is possible that my inner snark came through. I won't lie; I found it somewhat disingenuous to say that you weren't one of the people suggesting the change when you did, in fact, make the change. So yeah, my inner not-nice person may have gotten a bit out of hand in response. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geoff B, and no I wasn't directing my comment to you. Millahnna, I guess I should have been clearer in my earlier statement. I had noticed that, after you had reverted my change back, someone else (75.149.106.130) made a very similar change. I was trying to make clear that it wasn't me who made the second change, because that would have been pretty out of line for me to do. Relefo (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see now. Seriously, I was totally confused by that bit. Apologies. Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'm pretty sure it was consensual. She even asked Ronnie why he stopped during the middle of their sexual encounter. She was aware of what was going on. It was definitely not rape. --89.238.172.166 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To be consensual, both people participating need to be fully conscious during the act. This is clearly not the case, despite a single slurred request that he continue. She is drunk, drugged, has vomited and is unconscious. She no longer has the capacity to consent so it is rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.174.82 (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Millahnna's edit here for the plot section. I reviewed results in Google Books and Scholar Search for 2010 and 2011 but only found this discussing the scene. This minimal coverage leads me to believe a stand-alone section would be undue weight and that the current coverage in the reception section is sufficient. Is there a way to do an anchor link after that passage to somehow show the reader to that passage in reception? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering if that's possible due to some sources I have collected for a project I've been procrastinating about for ages. I haven't gotten around to testing in my "poke at code until I break it or figure it out" sandbox. Millahnna (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Millahana's added note. I haven't seen the film but this is one of those things where unless it's already identified in the work as rape or consensual, it is not up to us to decide either way. As Mill worded it, it's up to the reader to decide if they consider the act to be rape or not, without us engaging in [[WP:OR}] by interpreting something not otherwise answered in the work. GRAPPLE X 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not the one who originally phrased it that way (I think Jackieboy was). I came into the article from an old rfc at the film project (like 2009/2010 old). I just understand it being a really controversial issue for fairly obvious reasons and want to make sure we address it the best way possible relative to what are obviously going to be different interpretations since the character Faris plays never says anything at all about rape (yay or nay). I think I might be the only chick keeping track of the page so it's all a little strange, truly. I've actually gotten email over this one. Which was more than a little strange. Apparently I'm a 14 year old dude. Who knew? Millahnna (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations should be left to the viewer. A good plot summary tells what happens in the movie. If it's obvious which moral or legal category the events fall under, then stating what happened in the movie will definitely cover it completely. And if it's not obvious, it would be wrong to editorialize in the summary of the plot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize I'm late to this party (which I just learned of), but I think the current wording is perfect. It describes what happens (which fortunately I haven't seen) and is, as a side effect, more powerful, as it describes a scene where a man behaves not only odiously, but probably illegally, and without using any words that can be argued with. Perfect For the record, I'm female, so that makes two of us now, Milhanna.--TEHodson 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet more evidence of sexist bias in Wikipedia. Since she wasn't fully conscious (that's a fact), since you can't give consent if you're not fully conscious (also a fact), and since rape is non-consensual sex (guess I have to remind everyone that too is factual), how in the world are we having this discussion? What this talk page boils down to is, we should let people make up their own minds on whether it's rape if you're not fully conscious. SMH.... Ninestraycats (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, accusations about the motives/biases of editors seem unlikely to cut through the controversy here; let's see if we can stick to discussion of the article and its sources. I haven't seen this flick, but perhaps a way forward here would be to consult any secondary sources summarizing this movie's plot. Do reviewers and commentators tend refer to this scene as rape, sex, ? Personally the current wording seems fine to me; it's factual and neutral enough that people can draw their own conclusions, which appears to reflect the tone of the film. But if reviewers or the movie itself refer to this scene as rape, we should certainly change it. Khazar2 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read down to the reception section before commenting. If we have reviewers calling this date rape, I'd suggest we follow suit by using the word "rape". We cover the movie's awkward attempt to make it "okay" in the reception section, but we could mention it in the plot summary too if necessary. Khazar2 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of major newspapers call it rape. [2] And obviously consent can not be given under those conditions, so legally it is rape. Dream Focus 20:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Similarities To Paul Blart Mall Cop

Is it worth mentioning in this section that Observe And Report only made 13% as much as Mall Cop? I think a comparison on the relative successes might be worth mentioning CoW mAnX (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

dvd screener leaked

should this be included? Its all over demonoid and pirate bay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.211.123 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. Dozens of films get screeners leaked all the time. Based on that, it seems like a triviality and not worth mentioning in any article unless there's some newsworthy issue behind one of the leaks (i.e. a director leaking it, a full-scale investigation, etc.). --99.186.111.95 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)