Talk:Room (2015 film)

"Joy learns her parents have divorced and that her mother has a new husband, Leo."

Is that right? I don't remember the grandmother and Leo being married?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Aye, maybe that's not right. I've changed this to "partner" to cover our bases. Popcornduff (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that's much better as well!Cebr1979 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In the movie, he's described as Grandma's "friend".2600:6C50:800:2787:483C:9A35:BE47:F8B4 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

About that wardrobe

Kintetsubuffalo, I guess I'm not understanding your position. Why do you think wardrobe needs to be linked in the plot summary?

Lots of words have several meanings. What is it that's confusing about "wardrobe" in this context?

Is there another word we could use instead? Popcornduff (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible spoiler in film summary?

I wonder if this sentence, "Held captive for seven years in an enclosed space, a woman (Larson) and her 5-year-old son (Tremblay) finally gain their freedom, allowing the boy to experience the outside world for the first time" gives away too much? So much of the suspense from the movie comes from wondering whether they get to escape, so this gives away a bit too much. Would suggest something along the lines of "plot their escape", as opposed to "finally gain their freedom" and end it at that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.191.92 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Officially Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers (see WP:SPOILER), though, and as the main premise of the film is how the two characters recover after escaping - rather than being about the escape itself - I think it's more encyclopaedically accurate to keep it as it is. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Room (2015 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool, my favorite movie of 2015. I'll gladly take up this review. Expect comments soon. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

First Pass

Lead

• There is no mention of the film's production. There should be a third paragraph about it's production

Plot

• They are captives of a man they call "Old Nick," Jack's biological father, who abducted Joy seven years prior, and routinely rapes her while Jack sleeps in the closet. Instead of "They are captives of a man...", try "they are held captive by a man...". The way the sentence reads now is kind of weird. Also, does Old Nick really need to be linked? Having watched the film, Old Nick was not presented as the devil, and while that may have been a subtle hint by Donoghue, it's not necessary. Remove the link.
• Joy is horrified when she awakens and sees their interaction, slapping Old Nick away. You need to state that Jack and Old Nick were talking with each other. "Their interaction" doesn't explain who is interacting with who.
• Although stunned by his first exposure to the outside world, Jack jumps from the truck and attracts the attention of a passer-by. There's nothing wrong with this line, but it did make me realize that it's never stated that Jack was born in Room. I feel like this should be explained, or it may confuse a casual reader
• Reunited with her family, Joy learns her parents have divorced and that her mother has a new partner, Leo. She returns with Jack to her childhood home where her mother and Leo reside. Her father cannot accept Jack and leaves. While it is explained that Joy's parents got divorced, the last sentence makes it seem like Leo cannot accept Jack, when it's actually Joy's real father.
• The last part of the plot summary could be merged with the previous paragraph, since all of those events occur in the final act of the movie.
• The plot summary currently sits at 564 words, well below the 700 word recommend limit for plot summaries. Nice job!

Cast Not much to say here, moving on

Production

• From an aesthetic standpoint, the production section is a bit crowded with pictures. I'm reading this article on a small Chromebook screen, and the text is crunched between the picture of Donoghue and Tremblay. Pesonally, I'd wouldn't mind seeing the picture of Tremblay either be removed, or moved to the reception section with Larson's picture. Also, do we really need to know what Pinewood Toronto Studios looks like? It serves no purpose.
• She also suggested shooting in Toronto because it could resemble the United States, and she believed it would be awkward for many Irish filmmakers to work in the U.S. Can you explain why she though it would be awkward.
• This article is missing info on how Larson isolated herself from the rest of the world for 30 days to prepare for the film
• I've never been a big fan of red links, so can the link to Ethan Tobman be removed?

Release

• The film began a limited release on October 16, 2015.[34] The film went into wide release on January 22, 2016.[35] The film was released in the United Kingdom on January 15, 2016, by Studio Canal.[36] I don't like that three straight sentences begin with "The film". They should be reworded to remove the repetition

Reception

• After its U.S. release on October 16, 2015... You don't need to repeat the release date, since it was already mentioned in the previous section
• Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a rating of 94%, based on 245 reviews, with an average rating of 8.4/10. You should clarify that 94% of the reviewers liked the film, and that it received an average rating of 8.4/10. A reader might be confused as to how it has a 94% but only an 8.4/10 rating
• Again, another aesthetic quip, but could you replace Larson's picture with one that's more recent? I'm not a big fan of having a picture of her from 2010, five years before the film was released. Try the picture that's on her page.
• The reception section has way too many quotes. While having some quotes here and there is fine, having too many quotes within such a short space can mess up the flow. Try to paraphrase some of the larger quotes. For example, the quote Eric Kohn of Indiewire stated, "Brie Larson and newcomer Jacob Tremblay['s]... textured performances turn outrageous circumstances into a tense and surprisingly credible survival tale" can be paraphrased into Eric Kohn of Indiewire commended Larson's and Tremblay's performances for making an outrageous premise feel like believable tale of survival.
• Room has received many awards and nominations. Brie Larson's performance in particular... Remove the link for Brie Larson, as she has already been linked in the article
• The film received four nominations for the 88th Academy Awards, with Larson winning the Academy Award for Best Actress. It was already mentioned that Larson won the award for Best Actress two sentences ago

References and external links

• Refs 2, 22, 32, and 57 are missing the author
• In the external links section, I don't see the point in listing the Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic pages if they're already used as references

@Ribbet32: Alright, all done with the first pass through. Overall, it's clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but it still needs some work to get to GA status. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: I may likely implement some of your feedback in time. Personally, though, I kind of regret going for this right now and would like to withdraw. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, sorry to hear that. Thank you for letting me know. Unfortunately, I will have to fail the article, but feel free to renominate it once the issues have been addressed. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Room (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105339/http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-121514-jj-abrams-wraps-the-cellar-tom-hiddleston-finishes-i-saw-the-light-more/ to http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-121514-jj-abrams-wraps-the-cellar-tom-hiddleston-finishes-i-saw-the-light-more/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.academy.ca/getmedia/b50f8ac9-e044-4f75-932d-d9e54509f484/CdnScreen16_WinnerList_FILM_DRAFT.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.academy.ca/getmedia/caf075e3-46c4-42a9-a590-11ec56806235/CdnScreen16_NomineeList_Film_Jan2016.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)