Jump to content

Talk:Foxcatcher

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 12 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Plot?

[edit]

Saw this film trailer on tv and thought, oh based on real life, let's google it. I'm disappointed that the synopsis is basically just one sentence and gives absolutely no clue as to what the film is about. Or is it really just about wrestlers? How boring. For it to be based on real life, there has to be a reason they made the film. I have no clue who these people are or why there is a film about them, so maybe someone could write a better synopsis? 82.14.229.118 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foxcatcher explores several themes, one of which repeats Citizen Kane -- the wealthy think they can buy anything they want. In this case, John DuPont wants the loving family relationship he never had, and thinks he can attain it by taking a champion wrestler (and later, his brother) under his wing. When he realizes he'll never achieve it, he murders the older brother. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark's Schultz's reaction" section

[edit]

I've removed this section, because it is partly about a living person, and completely unreferenced (except general references to social media sites, without URLs to the posts). If you want to put it back, it's best to find a secondary source (or sources) discussing his reaction over time, rather than relying directly on social media posts he allegedly made. This should also allow it to summarize, rather than needing massive block quotes. Superm401 - Talk 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you removed the section it was overly long, and had no references. I would have marked it citation needed and given editors a chance to show they were willing to improve it.
Before even seeing your comment I independently added a short note about Mark Schultz's reaction to the Critical response section. I've included several references, including a article that explains the Twitter messages that have since been deleted. I think it is best not to include the deleted messages, and summarize his (strong) feelings about the way the story and relationships were fictionalized.
Feel free to rephrase. I would encourage editors to try and keep it terse, a couple of sentences at most. -- 109.77.223.28 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]

Does it need to reveal the death of [redacted]? Even if it is based on true events, the ending of the film shouldn't be spoiled for people who aren't informed about the real events in the first paragraph of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.240.229.50 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True in principle, I suppose, but a good story isn't about events, but about character interactions. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPOILER. I think most people expect Wikipedia to give the full story, including the ending, the plot section needs to be complete WP:FILMPLOT. That is no excuse for being rude or badly written, if the plot section is well written it will only mention the ending in the last or (second to last) paragraph.
I've read far too many reviews and previews of Foxcatcher and American Sniper that spoiled the ending, as if it was okay because the stories are based on real life, so best of luck to anyone who thinks they can avoid Wikipedia giving it away. As a rule I don't read the Wikipedia plot section until after I've seen a film. -- 109.77.223.28 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough for the Plot section to give away the ending; anyone wishing to avoid spoilers can easily avoid that section. But the film's ending is given away in the opening paragraph of the page. There's no benefit in having that sentence there and I'd say it should be removed. Harryedwards (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a movie about a killer. It is different than, for example, "The Sixth Sense" where the reveal is pretty much the main thing the movie has going for it. Or "The Crying Game" where, again, the reveal is paramount. "Foxcatcher" is a character study, and not a thriller. Is Romeo and Juliet "spoiled" because you know they die? No, because it is a tragedy, and it is the "getting there" that is the point of the play (FWIW, the Wikipedia article says they die in the first paragraph). Likewise, it is the "getting there" in Foxcatcher that makes it exceptional, not the killing itself. Some could say, and I would agree, that knowing Du Pont eventually kills makes for a more interesting experience in the watching preceeding the shooting. Some would disagree, and that is the point... who is to say what spoils a movie, and what makes for a more enriching experience? Wikipedia has decided over the years that editing based on concern about spoilers is not acceptable. This is without qualification... it does not say "except for the first paragraph" or "except for this and that"... it says "spoiling" is not to be used as a rationale. Marteau (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is poorly written. Just because you can do it that way doesn't me you should. I strongly oppose including the ending in the intro. Can you still enjoy the film knowing it is leading up to a murder? Sure, but is a total dick move to say, Darth Vader is his father, he is really is a she, he was a ghost all along, etc, in the intro. I'm sure there must be a Wikipedia rule about "don't be a dick". The intro should introduce the subject, not give away the ending. -- 109.78.253.31 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that film is almost entirely about wrestling and the relationships of the principle characters and the murder is only a tiny tiny part at the end of the story (nothing about the police response, trial or anything) I think it is clear case of WP:UNDUE emphasis to include it in the intro. This is a movie about Mark Schultz and his experience with the eccentric John du Pont, it ends in a killing but it is not a movie about a killer. As the intro says, it is a biographical drama. -- 109.78.253.31 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE???? That's ridiculous. Out and out ridiculous, saying mentioning a murder in a movie about a murderer which probably wouldn't have been made into a movie had there not been a murder as "undue". It's a character study of a murderer, FFS. You're simply Wikilawyering to get mention of the murder out of the the opening paragraphs, because your previous "it's a spoiler" rationale won't fly. Absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to get into an edit war about this, but I just am compelled to speak out whenever I see attempts to game the system and Wikilawyer because you don't like the rules adopted by concensus here. Don't like the rules? Invoke "ignore all rules" argue for an execption, or work to get the rules changed, and at least maintain the dignity of your arguments. Marteau (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is interesting, but I disagree. Someone made the effort to start this discussion and I agreed.
(There are lots of redirects but it seems the Don't be a dick guideline was removed as it was already covered by other guidelines.
I though the film was fairly interesting as the character study of an eccentric millionaire who was interested in wrestling, I didn't know it ended in tragedy until the end, although the film did seem tense and creepy.
Which Romeo and Juliet article are you referring to? Romeo and Juliet says they die, the Baz Luhrmann film Romeo + Juliet does not feel it is necessary to mention it in the intro. We could selectively pick examples and counter examples. I don't think the article is improve by having that information in the intro.

I'll try to summarize this discussion so far:

  1. Marteau and Harryedwards think it is fine to say [redacted] was murdered in the intro.
  2. 46.240.229.50 and 109.77.*.* (me) doesn't think it should be mentioned in the intro. I'm not counting WilliamSommerwerck as his position could be either way.

I made a WP:BOLD change. There is no consensus either way yet, so for now it is not in the intro, but I will abide by the consensus. I'd obviously prefer if the consensus was based on the opinion of a bigger group too, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can have some very strange results. -- 109.78.253.31 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think the opposite; see above. Marteau's point about who is to say what makes for the more enriching experience - knowing there was a murder in advance or not - is fair, but the way I see it, if the info is only in the plot section, then every reader has the choice whether to find out in advance. If it's in the page's first paragraph, that choice is removed. Harryedwards (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I should have read more slowly and carefully. The downside is this discussion itself downside is a spoiler, so I've redacted my own comments, and (I hope this isn't overreeaching) also removed the name from the initial comment. -- 109.77.218.156 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOILER is a guideline. It is not policy. It allows for "common sense" exceptions. Those guidelines do not seem to have considered that people would put "spoilers" in the opening paragraphs... they only mention them occuring in the plot section. After some consideration, I'm fine with not applyyng the guideline in this case as an exception, and not mentioning the murder in the intro. Marteau (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for having a full and complete plot section. If it was necessary to mention it in the Production or Critical response section I'd engage in a discussion and ask for careful consideration if it absolutely was necessary. Frankly most film articles go too far the other way, failing to give any suggestion of the story in the intro. -- 109.77.218.156 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the intro to include true crime as the genre is much more appropriate, a far more subtle, well written approach. -- 109.78.182.67 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Gay Subtext

[edit]

The category [[Category:LGBT-related drama films]] was added to the article without any explanation. The lack of explanation was my initial reason for removing it.

The real life basis for this possible subtext seems to be based on this accusation: a former assistant coach, Andre Metzger, accused him of sexual harassment after Metzger spurned Du Pont's advances. Du Pont's lawyers denied that.

There is a possible subtext to the film, and some reviewers have commented on it. It is possible to read all kinds of things into a story, or any piece of art of culture, if you want to, whether it was the intent of the creators or not. This article does not yet contain any commentary on that possible subtext, and it is inappropriate to add such categories before the article includes reliable notable sources discussing the topic. Categories need proper sources too. -- 109.78.253.31 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out and Slate might be a good place to start, but the slate article can be taken to undermine the argument depending on how you look at it: Schultz writes in his memoir that “I had my suspicions [that du Pont might be gay], but I never observed … anything that would cause me to say he was a homosexual. -- 109.78.253.31 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watched Foxcatcher for the first time yesterday. Not knowing that Mark's training partner was his brother, I was surprised at how intimate and affectionate they were. It probably wasn't intended to disturb the audience -- but it does. It also creates a parallel for John's attempt to become emotionally intimate with Mark, which at first succeeds, then ultimately fails (made clear when Mark objects to John touching his stomach). As to whether John had conscious sexual feelings for Mark, it's unlikely. But given the nature of wrestling, unconscious feelings would have been no surprise. Of course, we can't ask John. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who was his training partner? 5 minutes in, Mark says "Dave's my brother. ... We both won golds." 6 minutes in, there's a picture of Mark and his brother together with their gold medals. 8 minutes in, the guy from the picture, his brother who also won gold, comes out of the office and soon starts a training session. When Dave drops Mark off after training, there's little surprise they were affectionate. Jmg38 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length

[edit]

As per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE, "necessary" detail must be maintained", but "Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of (plot, character and theme), or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included." Details like how he is charged by "Delaware County's District Attorney (and now U.S. Congressman, R-PA7) Patrick Meehan.[7][8]"... I'm not seeing how knowing he is now a Congressman qualifies for inclusion in the "Plot" section. I could give other examples but that will serve to illustrate the point. I have not seen the movie yet, and can't say if that detail is even in the movie... if not, it's not plot, but back story or background information not includable as per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. I suspect trimming of this and other such detail would go far towards meriting a removal of the excessive plot size banner. Like I said, I'd do it myself but I can't because I have not seen the movie, but I would support the removal, by someone who has, of excessive, unnecessary detail, and the removal of backstory and background not in the movie or "an integral or iconic part of the work's notability" from the "Plot" section. Marteau (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the movie -- twice -- and I also live ten minutes away from where this all happened and thus also followed the events closely in real time as they happened. The detail and cited references included in the concluding paragraphs about the murder of Dave Schultz, armed siege of the estate, arrest, mental status, subsequent trial, imprisonment, and death of Mr. du Pont were not added casually, but because they are essential for fully understanding the "whys" and "hows" of the complex true life events and interactions among the three central figures (du Pont and the Schultz brothers) that happen throughout the film. This is especially true of how these events were affected by Mr. du Pont's unusually close connections with the Newtown Township Police Department which are both alluded to and shown multiple times over the course of the film, and his long term relationships with both the political and greater law enforcement structures and establishments in both the township and Delaware County, PA, as a whole. Centpacrr (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being that you cede no ground and make no concession even for my example of the detailing a congressman's district number shows then we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the purpose of a "Plot" section and will await concensus. Marteau (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressman's district (which takes exactly one character, the numeral "7", to define) includes the township in which the estate was located, however that is a very minor issue which I did not specifically address in my much broader comment. I have instead explained in above in considerable detail why the material in question is both relevant and essential to understanding key elements of the plot of a film which you admit that you have neither seen or have any familiarity about the true life events it depicts. That being the case, I don't really know how you have reached a conclusion that none of the contributors to the "Plot" section understand its purpose. I would suggest, therefore, that before you comment further that you both see the film and read the several sources specifically cited in the paragraphs in question before drawing any conclusions about the relevance, value, and "purpose" of this material. Centpacrr (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That I have not seen it is why I limited myself to citing only the congressional district issue. And I also lived near Newtown Square and also followed the issue as it happened and have indeed read and comprehended the various sources... well enough to question here in talk the level of detail in the plot, and well enough to have reason to ask another editor to look into trimming it. My question is valid,as is my request that another editor look into it, seeing as you seem unwilling to concede that any trimming at all needs to be done. Marteau (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that "no trimming" could be done (although I do not see that the section is overly long), but that the final paragraphs about the murder -- an event that if it had not happened a film on this subject would never have ben made -- and subsequent events is the wrong place to do it as more than any other this material is essential "for a reader's understanding of plot, character and theme" of the movie as well as "an integral or iconic part of the work's notability", i.e., the murder, without which there would be no movie at all. Centpacrr (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a resolution to this issue, I have deleted the material about the real life subsequent events and consequences of the murder from the movie's "Plot" section and created a short new section entitled "Resulting subsequent events" which details what happened to du Pont, the Schultz brothers, and Dave's wife and children as a result of Dave's murder. As this material has now been deleted from the "Plot" section, I have also removed the tag about that section's supposed excessive length. Thank you for your thoughts an input on this matter. As this material is no longer in the "Plot" section it should fully mitigate your concerns about WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Being retained and moved to its own real life "subsequent events" section, however, also still provides essential, necessary context for readers to fully understanding the "whys" and "hows" of the complex true life events and interactions among the three central figures (du Pont and the Schultz brothers) that were the reason that the film was made in the first place. Centpacrr (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent solution, one which makes for a better article, and one which resolves any issues I had with the plot length or content. Marteau (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in the movie vs. Real life <SPOILERS>

[edit]

The last paragraph for the movie explains what happened in real life with du Pont locking himself in his mansion. However, the movie actually shows du Pont running through a tunnel underground and being caught by officers surrounding the cabin that he walked out of. How are the current plot details appropriate to describe what happened in the movie? - Theironminer (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the arrest depicted in the film have been added. Centpacrr (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the movie didn't explain how long it took for the search, the film just went through a slideshow of authorities going through Foxcatcher Farm to find him. I still don't see if the 48 hour period was part of the movie. - Theironminer (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Some people use the plot section to clear up confusion about what they have seen in the movie. They'll watch a DVD, or return from a break from watching, and think "what was it I just saw," and come to Wikipedia for the plot. Having descriptions here that is not in the movie will be confusing and is not the purpose of the plot section. Such detail belongs in other sections. Let's keep the Plot description to describing the plot, not adding back story and background and context. Marteau (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate to add a "Differences between the movie and the actual event" section (or however that section is typically phrased in other articles). Marteau (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the script may be "silent" about some specific details such as the period of time of (or between) events, etc, does not mean that there are not reliable sources (which have all been cited in footnotes 8-21) for them that are in any way inconsistent with the film's plot. Leaving out well documented facts such as the eight year period between the 1988 Olympics and Mark's leaving Foxcatcher and Dave's murder, "48-hours" being the length of time of the siege, what the service tunnel connected, the location and size of the estate and the training facility, etc which are all relevant, knowable, sourced, and in no way inconsistent with the movie's plot and its script is misleading to the reader, contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia Project, and unhelpful to the process of building the best possible article. If this were a fictional film then this would not be an issue, but as "Foxcatcher" is meant to tell the true story of an actual high profile crime (and the series of events leading up to it), it is absolutely appropriate to include such well known, fully documented facts that are implied but may not have been fully explained in the script for whatever reason. Centpacrr (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in any of the guidelines or essays or policies I have read that the purpose of a plot section is to do anything but give a "summary of the film's main events". You are bending the purpose of the Plot section far from what it's intent is, which is to simply say what happened IN THE MOVIE. Not background. Not backstory. Not explainations the movie left out. Just what is actually in the movie. Your intentions, however well meant, are not what the section is for. Things not in the movie belong in other sections. Marteau (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted all the detailed factual material (with references) that I added that has been objected to as too complete. Centpacrr (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well-founded objections were raised pertaining to the "Plot" section. No objections were raised by anyone pertaining to the "Subsequent Events" section and about which I called "an excellent solution". There is precedent for special sections for special cases, for example, The Executioner's Song article has a "Background" section, Midway (film) has a "Background and production" section, "Music For Chameleons" has a "Conception" section, etc etc etc. In this case, information pertaining to the real life events will be what readers are looking for, and it certainly warrants a special section. I'm adding it back. Marteau (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for paring down the plot section a bit. It still comes in at over 700 words (700 words being the high end recommendation for most plots) but its in the ballpark. The "too long" banner can stay up or come down as far as I'm concerned, I don't care. Marteau (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I still think an "Accuracy" section would be appropriate. Marteau (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant "real life" material has been added as three inline footnotes as opposed to a new section. I think this is a much better and more economical solution. Centpacrr (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The eight "Notes"

[edit]

The eight detailed and extensively sourced "Notes" I have added to the plot section are there to document the differences between events as they are depicted in the film which have been conflated or fictionalized for dramatic purposes and the actual events as they occurred -- or didn't occur -- in real life. The majority of the citations are to the first person memoir by Mark Schultz entitled Foxcatcher: The True Story of My Brother's Murder, John du Pont's Madness, and the Quest for Olympic Gold as well as contemporary and subsequent news coverage published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, and a variety of other local and national news media. That being the case, neither the film or its script are the sources for anything in these notes as their very purpose is to document where the film and real events differ from the film. For instance the scene showing John du Pont walking to the mansion's garden house through an underground tunnel just before his arrest is fictionalized as is confirmed by both Mark Schultz's book and the contemporary news accounts cited in footnotes #23 and #24 which state that he attempted to reach the garden house by walking outside which is the reason that police were able to arrest him while he attempted to do so. Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "true crime" movie

[edit]

For the second time in half a day, the categorization of this film as a "true crime" film has been removed from the initial sentence, without explaination, and I'm at a loss to understand why. It's commonly referred to as such by reviewers. With little effort, I have cobbled together a list of ten citations, of ten different reviews, most of which call it a "true crime" film in the very title of the review:

Article Title: 'Foxcatcher': A Bloated True-Crime Story Based On Wealthy Heir John du Pont http://www.npr.org/2014/11/14/364090086/foxcatcher-a-bloated-true-crime-story-based-on-wealthy-heir-john-du-pont

Image Caption of Carell as du Pont: "Steve Carell portrays billionaire John du Pont in director Bennett Miller's true-crime drama" http://www.nola.com/movies/index.ssf/2015/01/foxcatcher_movie_review.html

Article Title: "Movie Review: ‘Foxcatcher' is well-sculpted true crime story" http://www.commercialappeal.com/go-memphis/movies/beifuss-on-movies/movie-review-foxcatcher-is-wellsculpted-true-crime-story_67229690

Article Title: "Foxcatcher Is a True Crime Story Striving for Significance" http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/movie-review-foxcatcher.html

"'Foxcatcher’s' true crime mystery falls flat" http://extranews.net/foxcatchers-true-crime-mystery-falls-flat.html

Article: "Movie review 'Foxcatcher': A complex, if incomplete, reconstruction of a true crime", in the body: " "Miller has already won the Best Director prize for this true crime drama at Cannes...." http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150129/entertainment-movie-review/article/movie-review-foxcatcher-complex-if-incomplete

Article Title: "We review FOXCATCHER – Unnerving true-crime drama led by top performances" http://www.themovies.co.za/2015/01/08/we-review-foxcatcher-unnerving-true-crime-drama-led-by-top-performances/

Article Title: "Foxcatcher thrillingly told true crime story" http://www.pentictonherald.ca/entertainment/article_f26ec02c-a751-11e4-aa42-7b78d9ac069f.html

Body: "This is a true-crime story in which the crime is treated as an afterthought." https://thedissolve.com/reviews/1208-foxcatcher/

Article Title: "Carell, Tatum, Ruffalo shine in thrillingly told true-crime story 'Foxcatcher'" http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Film+review+Carell+Tatum+Ruffalo+shine+thrillingly+told/10378165/story.html#ixzz3SZSjTAOi

I'm going to go ahead and add it back. Marteau (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were it not for the murder of Dave Schultz there would be no commercial or any other reason at all to have made a feature film about John du Pont, the Schultz brothers, or Team Foxcatcher. I have lived less than ten minutes from where this all took place since 1971 and even though I have worked in the field of sports journalism for most of that time, I knew virtually nothing about the Schultz brothers and du Pont's Foxcatcher wrestling program until the murder took place in January, 1996. When that happened, however, it was not only the biggest story in local media for a period of at least a week, it was also a huge national story as well which drew massive media coverage with live reports that dominated national newscasts during the siege and for some days thereafter. While the actual depiction of the shooting and du Pont's capture takes less than four minutes of screen time at the very end of the picture with all the other noncriminal activity (some of which is conflated and/or fictionalized) shown over the previous two hours constituting prelude to that event, that single "true crime" -- the murder of Dave Schultz -- is the one and only central and essential element that drives the rest of what happens in the entire film -- and the only reason that that a commercial feature film was financed and made at all. Ergo it is first and foremost a "true crime" film and only tangentially (if at all) a "sports" and/or "biographical" film. There is no basis whatsoever to classify it as anything else. Centpacrr (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is is not a universal approach to reporting on or reviewing this movie. Some reviews, like that of the New Yorker [1], are also conscient enough to realize that this movie relies on most of the audience not to know the details of the real world story this movie based, and therefore does not spoil its ending. IMDB, RottenTomatoes and the press releases associated with the movie do not spoil the ending either. I think this gives us plenty of leeway to choose not to spoil the ending of this movie in the first sentence of this article. I think a fitting comparison for this is the movie [Milk (film)|Milk], there too Wikipedia editors could have chosen to spoil the ending of the movie by calling it a "true crime" film, but instead it has been chosen to only in the second paragraph to mention the assassination of Harvey Milk. I think the same consideration for our readers should be taken here, so at least people who are just casually search Google for this movie will not have its ending spoiled.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is. Encyclopedias describe. I'm sure you can find descriptions of "Romeo and Juliet" which don't say it's a "tragedy" within the first sentence but an encyclopedia describes what things are, and this is a true-crime drama. And as demonstrated above, the categorization is common, including being called so in the very headline of many reviews. If you go to "Rotten Tomatoes" for example, (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/foxcatcher) it begins the very first sentence of the "Critics Concensus": "A chilling true crime drama..." and their categorization of this as "true crime" appears on the first page of a Google search right after Wikipedia's. Marteau (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheFreeloader, your misconception is that WP articles on films are "reviews" which they are not. They are instead neutral descriptions or accountings of the film's genre(s), cast, crew, its plot, what it depicts, facts about its production, distribution, gross receipts, accolades, etc, all based on reliable and verifiable sources which are cited with footnotes. In the case of this film the article also includes extensive notes as to what has been fictionalized or altered for dramatic purposes as well as a section on what happened to Mr. du Pont, Mark Schultz, the Dave Schultz family, and others after the murder. Also unlike a review, it does not contain POV nor does it "hide" factual material. Readers of WP articles know and expect that and thus avoid WP articles on movies and the like if they don't want to encounter "spoilers" before seeing a movie. As I noted above in February, had it not been for the "true crime' of the murder of Dave Schultz. there would have been no reason, commercial or otherwise, to ever make Foxcatcher thus failing to recognize and state that in the lede of the WP article would actually constitute encyclopedic malpractice. Centpacrr (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When does Dave Schultz die?

[edit]

The summary says that Dave dies in his wife's arms, a Hollywood cliché if ever there was one. The film suggests that Dave dies when the third bullet hits him. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foxcatcher. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foxcatcher. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foxcatcher&oldid=1206441228"