Talk:Ghost World (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Booker, M. Keith (2007). "Ghost World". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.

Line removed from lead paragraph[edit]

I took out this line: "It is a satire on the vacuousness of pop culture which intentionally takes the ironic format of a teen film." It's much more about the teenagers who disdain popular culture for personal reasons. There is actually very little about pop culture in the film. In my view, the film's more anout teen angst and alienation. Also, the "analysis" section needs major work. It's full of POV. -- D.M. (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Anyone looking for a satirical take on the vacuousness and self-importance of various aspects of popular culture would be much better served by a Christopher Guest mockumentary. And about the analysis section: strictly speaking it should be cut or completely rewritten, as it's bordering on original research. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now made many edits to correct these deficiencies in the article. It's now (mostly) free of POV. -- D.M. (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "(comic book)" from the introduction, it's both redundant and slightly innaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.137.144 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cult film[edit]

"sitting at number 7 on its first release into Video stores, rapidly above hit films such as Donnie Darko, even on Donnie Darko’s first DVD and VHS release"

I don't see how this can be compared to another cult film in Donnie Darko.

Spoiler warning[edit]

User:91.148.159.4 has reinserted the spoiler warning template into the plot section of the article after two editors (myself included) removed it. I contend the warning is redundant in a plot section, or at least in this one where nothing surprising is revealed. I don't believe anything in this article could "spoil" a viewer's enjoyment of the film. Could User:91.148.159.4 (or anyone else) explain what is being warned of? --dm (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond to this before, but I didn't expect it; you should have left a note on my talk or something. Very nice of you to discuss instead of revert warring. Now, I think it's pretty obvious that for the overwhelming majority of films, reading their plot can harm the enjoyment of seeing it. If you are of the opinion that the plot of Ghost World is so exceptionally predictible that knowing it in advance wouldn't harm the viewer's enjoyment of it - well, I can't agree with you, and I think you should explain why you think so. Since the first sentence, despite being in a "Plot" section, was just a useful general statement about the subject of the film and not a spoiler, it was a good idea to separate it from the rest with a spoiler tag. Now, seeing that the anti-spoiler-tag party on Wikipedia:Spoiler is definitely prevailing, I have complied with the new version of the guideline (which I personally disagree with) and moved it to the lead instead. --91.148.159.4 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have left a note on your talk page but you aren't a registered user so I figured you'd be more likely to see it here.
I don't think that Ghost World is predictable, just that enjoying the film doesn't depend on being surprised by any plot developments in the way that knowing Darth Vader's true identity might "spoil" The Empire Strikes Back or knowing the plot twist in The Sixth Sense might ruin that movie. (Neither of which has a spoiler warning, by the way.) I just don't see how knowing that Seymour and Enid sleep together or that Rebecca decides not to rent an apartment with Enid at the end of the movie would make the film any less enjoyable, but maybe that's just me.
Like you, I'm disagree with the (emerging) consensus on spoiler warnings although for a different reason. I think our policy should be to eliminate the warnings entirely. One reason being that saying a film is "spoiled" by advance knowledge of a particular plot point isn't NPOV. I guess keeping the spoiler warning out of "Plot" sections is a fair compromise. --dm (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the note - that's a common mistake. In fact, as an unregistered user, one does receive messages and see big bright orange message notifications just like anyone else. In contrast, one doesn't have article watchlists. That means the surest way to contact an anon is via his/her own talk page.
As for Ghost World, I think that knowing the plot developments in advance does change one's perception of this film, just like most other films. It did have surprising moments for me - for example I had no idea how Enid and Seymour's relationship would develop. I dare say my experience of the film would have been very different if I had known what would happen from the start. I don't know about enjoyment, but almost any film is made with the assumption that it is going to be watched without prior knowledge of its plot, hence its overall intended effect is likely to depend on this. Also, it's all about details ; even Monty Python and The Holy Grail, which you mention on your user page, would be spoiled if the spoilers get detailed enough - if each particular joke is retold. In fact, that was more or less the case in the article about Monty Python and The Holy Grail, the last time I read it. --91.148.159.4 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spoiler alert should be reinserted. If I known that the relationship between Rebecca and Enid dissolves in the end, I would have judged their relationship differently from the beginning. It's important to see the girls as allies from the start and analyze how their personalities, though similar, are different enough to pull them apart. Understanding their differences at the outset of the film really messes with the tiny alliance that they have. It is them against their world, at least in the beginning, and this is an important element of the film. (May Prumar (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Per WP:SPOILER, we do not include spoiler warnings. There's no reason to expect why an encyclopedic article about a film does not cover the film in its entirety, may it be the plot summary or an analytical section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ghost-world-poster.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Ghost-world-poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details[edit]

This section is unsourced and needs to be converted into prose, properly cited and placed back in the article. Until then, I've placed it here.--J.D. (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening sequence of the film includes a clip from the 1966 Bollywood musical Gumnaam, in which the famous singer Mohammed Rafi sings the lively dance tune "Jaan Pehechaan Ho."
  • The Coon Chicken Inn was a real restaurant chain, founded in 1925 in Salt Lake City. However, it folded in the late '50s and never changed its name to Cook's Chicken, as in the film. The second Coon Chicken Inn opened in Seattle in 1929, on Lake City Way, the same street where the original Ghost World comic's publishing company, Fantagraphics Books, sits today. Located directly across the street from the former location of the restaurant is a "Cook's Auto Rebuild."
  • The Coon Chicken Inn mascot painting used in the film was made by Robert Crumb.
  • The first record shown to Enid by Seymour at the garage is sale is by the Cheap Suit Serenaders, Robert Crumb's own band, in which Zwigoff played cello.
  • Besides being an adaptation of the comic book of the same name, originally serialized in Eightball magazine, Ghost World includes some material from other Eightball shorts such as "Art School Confidential". The character played by Steve Buscemi appears only as the victim of the girls' prank in the comic and was made significant at Zwigoff's suggestion. Another change includes Rebecca having a rather diminished role compared to her role in the comic, which gave a more balanced amount of attention to both girls.
  • Seymour's room was modeled after director Terry Zwigoff's own—particularly the shelved record collection, pinup art and historical memorabilia.
  • Enid's notebook was created for the film by Sophie Crumb, Robert Crumb's and Aline Kominsky-Crumb's daughter (mentioned in closing credits).
  • Interested in directing Ghost World as a feature film for some time, Zwigoff sat in on an acting class in San Francisco. Zwigoff said that after the class had wrapped up, he had approached the instructor and asked if she could hold a crash course for him in how to direct actors. [citation needed]
  • According to Zwigoff, Steve Buscemi was so uncomfortable playing Seymour that whenever he completed his work for that day, he would immediately change his attire.[citation needed]
  • The character of Mac on the drama Veronica Mars is often referred to as "Ghost World" in reference to the comics/film.
  • Singer "Weird Al" Yankovic is known to show a scene, in which the main characters call a waiter named Alan the name "Weird Al", during his concerts.
The first two trivia points are universally accepted facts. It's like trying to give a citation that the sky is blue. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Does anyone know what "Its critical reception was far greater than a certain degree of films released that year, significantly praised in many reviews" means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.170.15 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase got cleaned up, now we have the equally meaningless phrase, 'lower than average recognition by audiences.' Bustter (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cult film/comic[edit]

The movie is based on a cult comic: http://www2.citypaper.com/film/review.asp?rid=5659 Not sure why you've decided it's not a cult film. Most of the article is unreferenced, so can understand adding citation needed tags, but removing reference to this being a cult film with edit summary "not a cult film, whatever that even is" doesn't seem to make sense. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is a cult film. Two refs have been added to that effect under the Legacy section. I've also added more references. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghost World (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion[edit]

Earlier, I suggested that the categories "2000s coming-of-age films," "2000s teen comedy films," "American coming-of-age films," and, "American teen comedy films" be removed from this article. as, not only are they unsourced, those categories link to parent categories listing Ghost World essentially as a film for children (e.g. "2000s coming-of-age films" and "American coming-of-age films" link to "Coming-of-age films by decade" and "Coming-of-age films by country," both link to "Coming-of-age films," which links to "Coming-of-age fiction," further linking to "Young adult fiction," linking to "Young adult books," which leads to "Young adult literature," leading to "Children's literature," "Children's media," "Early childhood education materials," "Early childhood education," and, even, "Children's entertainment"). An editor argued that this is a bogus reason, and, suggested I raise the issue here.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've also been on a crusade to remove the word "Bildungsroman" from Wikipedia for the same dubious reason. You'd have to dig far and selectively for "Children's entertainment"- first you see "Works about adolescents" rather than "Works only for adolescents". More important than the parent categories (which are intentionally all-inclusive) are the definitions. Coming-of-age film: "Coming-of-age films focus on the psychological and moral growth or transition of a protagonist from youth to adulthood. Personal growth and change is an important characteristic of this genre, which relies on dialogue and emotional responses, rather than action. The main character is typically ... around mid-teen ... themes of developing sexual identity and political opinions are often featured in coming-of-age films; so, too, is philosophical development." Themes of sexuality and politics are rarely children's material. The mere fact that a work is about children does not mean it is for them. As Criterion recounted in its discussion about Walkabout (film): "Bond would come to full prominence in 1965 with his play Saved, a poetic portrait of working-class London life that scandalized audiences (or, more properly, a large number of those who had not seen it) with a shocking scene in which two youths stone to death an infant in a baby carriage. Of course, it was only representation: there was no baby in the carriage and there were no stones in the actors’ hands. Nevertheless, the Royal Court was forced to turn itself into a 'theater club' to escape censorship, and even seasoned theater critics—who had presumably seen Shakespeare’s grisly Titus Andronicus—expressed outrage. Among the play's defenders was Laurence Olivier, who wrote to one newspaper: 'Saved is not a play for children, but it is for grown-ups, and the grown-ups of this country should have the courage to look at it.'" Ribbet32 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand very well that the mere fact that a work is about children does not mean it is for them. That has not been my concern. My concern is about the parent categories, which are explicitly about works for children, as explained above. As long as Ghost World has those categories, Wikipedia categorizes it as a children's film and as children's entertainemnt. I believe it is not prudent. However, as I doubt I will ever reach a majority here, feel free to keep them if you wish.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And again, the parent categories do not matter as much as the definition of the terms. The parent categories are all-inclusive, but an alternative parent category to Category:Young adult fiction is Category:Works about adolescence, which again, is different from "Works for adolescents" or "Works only for adolescents". You need to stop edit warring across a multitude of articles over this parent category hang-up, which is causing you to misunderstand terminology. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I will stop, though, if you do not mind, I will appreciate it if you could replace the existing categories with the category you mentioned, seeing as you suggested it. Hope you accept my compromise as regards the art film designation as outlined below.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating one opinion from the same critic is not adequate to prove this is an art film. That is clearly a minority view. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cited several reliable sources from several different academics. Do you have a reliable source saying it is not an art film, or, even saying that calling it an art film is a minority opinion?--79.178.24.71 (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're being ridiculous. We do not cite sources saying a film does not fit a certain genre. The lede is for the most widely held view, not for minority views. Most critics call it a black comedy, so that is what we cite in the lede. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The designation of the film as an art film doesn't have to be mentioned in the lede, yet, the mere fact that several critics call it an art film means that the category stays: I hope that you'll accept my compromise of retaining the category while moving the art film designation to the reception section, where I note that several critics call it thusly.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to comic to Ghost World (comics), and move the dab page to the base name. There is clear consensus that the comic should not be treated as the primary topic, but there's no agreement that the film should be. It will be worth revisiting this in a few months to see how the page views shake out; it's likely that many readers are being misdirected by the current setup. Cúchullain t/c 13:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Although the comic came first, it is clear the film has eclipsed it in notability. The film has 76-77% of page views [[1]] [[2]], and even many of the comic views can be presumed to be from people searching for the film. Long-term significance of the 18-year-old film is clear; nominee for the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay and added to the Criterion Collection, a Google search for "Ghost World" brings up an overwhelming wealth of material about the film. Indeed, I imagine many of the users who see this listing at RM will be surprised the proposed titling wasn't the case already. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support solid nom based on both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; page view data confirmed. --В²C ☎ 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second; move Ghost World (disambiguation) to the base line. Not convinced that in GBooks the film overwhelmingly is long-term encyclopedic reference vs the comic it was based on. Having the dab there inconveniences no-one greatly as (film) (comics) will continue to show in search results and top-right box. And the dab bot can more easily pick up mis-links. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the requirement in your oppose for the topic to be overwhelmingly long-term encyclopedic documented in policy? Or is it a personal preference? —В²C ☎ 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, support second - Disambig all per above as WP:NOPRIMARY. Primary swaps are risky - editors need time to get used to and fix links, and incoming web links need time to adjust as well. -- Netoholic @ 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the well-researched nom and confirmation show that the film is primary. The film has become an iconic example of its genre. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per well-reasoned nom. The film is the article most people will be looking for, no need to inconvenience them wih a dab. PC78 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the comic has sufficient long-term significance that warrants the status quo. Evidence includes:
This does not mean there is nothing like the above sources for the film. I take the above sources to mean that the comic holds its own to be the primary topic as noteworthy source material. I am not unopposed to such switches (I am fine with how Road to Perdition is set up, for example) but since this comic was not simply a flash in the pan that later inspired a film, the status quo is fine by me. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is saying that the comic isn't academically important, just that it's not the primary. The film gets over 500 views a day while the comic gets about 120 (and many of those 120 are arguably looking for the film), and long-term significance should go to the film which has become iconic and a cult classic. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is always going to be tension between whether or not the source material or the film adaptation deserves primacy. To me, it is too simplistic to lean on page views especially when films in general trump other categories routinely. The source material should matter more if it has demonstrated its own worth. It is not WP:ASTONISHing for readers to land here. There is going to be a spectrum of relevance here. Some comics, like Road to Perdition, are little-known, while others like Watchmen are definitive. I notice that the Watchmen film's page views are 72% more than the graphic novel's. Would we consider the comic too primary not to switch that with the film, simply based on page views? I don't find the current arrangement to be broken. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being adapted into a film is itself proof of the long-term significance of the original work. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true. It can often be the case that films are made based on the original works' popularity, but not always. Sometimes the source material is obscure. Maybe it gets more attention with the film adaptation, maybe it does not. For example, Cool Hand Luke is based on a book that has very little direct coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik, thank you for making clear the historical significance of the original work. Likewise, the nom did the same for the film. I think we can agree that reasonable people can disagree about which is more significant historically. But, regarding likelihood of being sought, it’s no contest. The film “wins” hands down. So isn’t the film clearly the primary topic? Or do you think it’s reasonable to give the original work an edge with respect to historical significance, and just ignore page views and likelihood of being sought in determining PRIMARYTOPIC? —В²C ☎ 16:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisiting this, I would be fine with opposing the first move and supporting the second. I did not realize there was an existing disambiguation page (since no hatnote existed at the comic's article). I was thinking it was simply two topics and that the source material should be recognized as primary. To answer your question, my concern is that the general trend is that films will often beat out their source material when it comes to page views. Maybe because of higher visibility through re-sharing of audiovisual content and being played repeatedly, compared to non-screen media. Like if films about real-life people were almost always named after that person, I feel like we would still regard people's own biographical articles as "primary". I suppose I'd usually prefer that kind of significance attached to source material whenever it is reasonably evident. I recognize that this line of thinking is not fully in line with the general points of page views and long-term significance, but the guideline does say that other aspects can be considered for primacy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second; move Ghost World (disambiguation) to the base line per In ictu oculi. --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second it's clear that they're both very significant long-term contenders for the topic and indeed both articles describe their topic as a "cult classic", so there isn't a primary topic here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second. Page views are interesting, but are a terrible basis for decisions. What came first is important. No PrimaryTopic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, support second, move DAB page to the base title per all the above. This is actually our usual approach to such matters, so just do it for WP:CONSISTENCY if nothing else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No primarytopic as many others have suggested or supported. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st, support 2nd per above. Move dab page to basename per above - no clear primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_World_(film)&oldid=1207414621"