Talk:The Lobster

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

Animal Cruelty[edit]

In the opening scene of the film, a woman steps out of a car, walks over to, and shoots a donkey in an open field. From all appearances, this looks like a real shooting of a real animal. I see no reference whatsoever to this scene in either the lede, the plot summary, critical review, or anywhere in the article, for that matter, but as a reader, I was looking for some info on this. Why is this scene not mentioned in the article? 68.10.81.239 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-locals-in-sneem-talk-about-the-filming-of-the-lobster-movie-in-their-region-357086.html

"Dr Malone recalled one early-morning scene when a donkey had to be ‘shot’ outside the hotel and a vet was brought in to anaesthetise it briefly for the scene. But a local landowner, who was oblivious to the steps being taken to protect the animal, approached the crew and shouted: “There’ll be no donkey shot on this farm.”" Mando Salama (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some confirmation of that from the British Board of Film Classification: "There is a scene in which a donkey is killed. The scene is achieved with special effects rather than any actual animal cruelty." http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/lobster-film
However, and I doubt this particular source is citeable, a rabbit may have actually been killed in another scene, according to this: https://rateyourmusic.com/list/titusfox/animal_cruelty_in_films/2/ Probably worth investigating and including in the production section.
-kotra (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The donkey seemed to me as a stuffed one being toppled over, pulled by a rope or something. Pretty simple special effect. I wonder why noone complained about the blood covered dog which was supposedly kicked to death. Also, there were living animals roaming around, like a peacock or a camel. --2001:A62:170F:B301:A0FC:E817:CAEA:6D59 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The donkey was a real one. he moved a little when the heartless women approached it for a clear shot. The falling and rising of legs also looked pretty realistic. I am not sure if tranquilizers work that fast on a donkey. It takes several minutes. For example see the video of darting of a painted wild dog it takes more than a couple of mins. So there are only two options. it was a special effect donkey or more likely a real donkey was sacrificed for the scene. I personally believe it was the second. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in lead, "dystopian near-future", and names[edit]

Looks like Gomuse17 and I disagree about a few things. Let's figure them out here.

First, citations in the lead are unnecessary. WP:LEADCITE states that "information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source ... editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." This means we do not need to cite claims in the lead - such as the prizes the film won, or who stars in it - as this information is uncontroversial and already cited in the body of the article itself. For example, see the GA article The Interview (2014 film); it does not require citations in the leads as its claims are uncontroversial and properly sourced in the article.

Next: the claim that the film is set in a "dystopian near future". The problem with this is that there is nothing in the film itself to suggest this. The information is cited to a press release, but promotional materials etc do not trump the primary source itself - the movie - and may have been put together by people completely unrelated to the film's production. I understand it's tempting to include information from other sources, but WP:FILMPLOT states: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article."

The same rule applies to the names of characters and locations. To refer to characters and locations with Proper Capitals Like This suggests these are their proper, "correct" names, but nothing in the movie's story suggests this, and in fact most of the characters and locations go unnamed. It's misleading. (Note that how the characters are named in the credits is also not evidence for them having "proper names" in the story itself.) Popcornduff (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the setting adds understanding to the story and, therefore, is relevant and necessary; it is also commonly seen in the lead section of film articles. As for the press document, don't you think the content would have been endorsed by people related to the film before being released worldwide. Besides, trade publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter who had seen the film have stated the film as set in the future - meaning which the info on the setting should be preserved per WP:VERIFY. The same goes for the location and character names in capitals in the press release - it is likely the filmmaker's intention to have it presented that way. Also, i don't see how capitalisation is in any way misleading - an example would be Once (film) which has done the same thing, i.e. words that basically have the same meaning; it's just avoiding lengthy descriptions, and it makes it easier for readers to match the characters to the actors in the cast list when reading the article. Gomuse17 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of this defeats the WP:FILMPLOT policy I quoted: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." That goes for character names, too. Popcornduff (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the setting is supported by the press release, a primary source, and cited in film reviews - that means it is a reliable and accurate info. That said, as it is a one-sentence information, the most appropriate section to include it would be the lead. And then I don't see how following the press release's capitalisation of the names would mean "a differing perspective of the film's events". Gomuse17 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, you're quite right, the press release does qualify as a primary source.
But the bit that I really take issue with is that, because the film contains no suggestion that these are the characters' actual names, or that it is set in a dystopian future, to include these details means the plot summary is not accurately reflecting the film we are describing. I'm not particularly interested in what reliable sources (including even the director or whatever) says about the movie; the movie itself is what we should report. Still, I would like to hear what other editors think about this, because I'm happy to bow to the consensus. Popcornduff (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gomuse17 is right; the names should be as formatted in the credits; i.e., capitalized. 192.138.59.36 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC) [Woops, I wasn't signed in. WiiWillieWiki 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Referring to 'the hotel' and 'the city' without capitalisation doesn't make any sense, because the reader doesn't know which specific city the "the" refers to. Capitalisation makes it much clearer that these are features of this dystopian world. The removal of a reference to dystopia (future or no) is also unhelpful to the reader. 2001:630:206:4001:20A1:D63F:644F:D62 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, just say "a hotel" and "a nearby city" when you first mention them. This is basic English preposition use, right? I think it's self-evident that this is a dystopia, but I still think specifying that it is a future dystopia when there is nothing in the actual story or movie indicating that is strange, and misleading. Who cares about press releases when they have no apparent bearing on the movie itself?
Surely credits can't be used to "name" characters, because credits, by necessity, have to identify nameless characters one way or another (eg "Man With Hat" or whatever). That doesn't therefore mean those are the characters' names. What's more important, surely, is that these characters have no names specified in the story itself at all. Popcornduff (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Example of another movie article that deals with the naming issue: The Road (2009 film). See the Cast section. Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing in the discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_59#Opinions_needed_on_The_Lobster, I was suggesting they be left as lower-case unless they are proper nouns or explicitly named as such. For example, "David and the short-sighted woman conspire to escape and live in the city as a couple." but "David escapes the hotel and joins the Loners in the woods." If a character is referred to by a specific name or title like "Go talk to the Short-Sighted Woman" or "They call me the Short-Sighted Woman", then it can stay in caps. That the credits show Short-Sighted Woman doesn't really matter, as even bit roles like Man 1, Woman 3, would be capitalized, whereas in the prose they could be listed as "A man rushes to the street, followed by three women, the last of whom screams." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented AngusWOOF's suggestion here, as it makes perfect sense, but I see it has now been reverted without explanation. Why? Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews I saw for the movie have used both caps and non-caps. Example without proper noun. [1] Example with proper noun [2] If you want proper nouns, remove "the" in front of characters such as Lisping Man, and others and treat it as a name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent discussion over at WP:FILM suggests not removing "the" if it makes the sentence construction look awkward. But "the" can stay lower-case (e.g. Joker) unless it's a necessary part of their name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People are only told they are turned into animals.[edit]

my personal interpretation ... and I'm not trying to put my personal interpretation into the article, hear me out... is that nobody is turned into a literal animal, I don't believe that the people in the story have the technology for that. We never see anybody turned into an animal, it is only said. (Within the film I think it's a dystopian lie ("soylent green spoiler alert, "it's people") and in the literary sense people revert to their animal nature) My point is, the blurb in this article should not say that people are turned into animals, it should say that people are told they will be turned into animals. I'm putting that here rather than editing into the article because wikipedia is overrun with nitwits who are probably already spouting off about The Lobster Canon and I don't want to initiate an edit war. Also, "dystopian universe", seriously? How about one single cult town on normal planet earth, and we don't know anything else. 96.246.60.181 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that it's a single city, either. It's some setting in which people behave like this, and things work like this. Whether it's the whole world or just one place... isn't important to the story. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


"nobody is turned into a literal animal"?
The character David (Colin Farrell) is most often accompanied by a dog - until the dog is killed by 'Heartless Woman'. David continually refers to the dog as Bob, explicitly his (formerly human) "brother" who went through the 45 day process at the hotel at some point in the past, only to fail to find a partner and therefore was turned into a dog. Yet another person (female) in the story was said to have been turned into an animal (a bird, IIRC).
The fact that we never see anybody actually turned into an animal is not necessarily important. All that is called for is a little willing participation in the idea that they are... not an uncommon device in cinema or theatre, especially the absurdist variety. Otherwise, there would be no point in hanging around waiting for somebody called Godot to arrive, would there? 2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:A457:8732:29DF:179F (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

The lede described the film as science fiction romantic comedy, one of which is debatable, the other of which is nonsense. The film follows almost none of the genre-conventions of a rom-com (as described by that article), just having relationships and humor in a film don't make it one of those. It could be sci-fi, but the focus of the film is neither on the advanced technology nor on the impact of technology on society: what we see isn't the consequence of being able to turn people into animals... it's just one more strange thing that society does (and possibly not even thru technology: the characters question whether the story one of them heard is true). So I've changed the description to absurdist dystopian, because that better captures the themes of the film, and it's how sources are describing it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgement call, of course, but I think your description indeed captures it. Barte (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Character names[edit]

The names of the limping man (John) and the lisping man (Robert) are given in the film, if not any other characters. Should these be added to the article? --78.144.245.146 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lobster. 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:

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) 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Lobster. 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:

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) 07:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hey! I don't know how to edit wikipedia stuff, but currently the "critical reception" part of this article has been changed by someone who really hated the film. They've changed all the scores and review quotes to be negative. It's very funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.25.110 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin explained the 3 options, shouldn't that be included somewhere[edit]

As mentioned in this link. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lobster&oldid=1202323592"