Talk:Creep 2

This topic has been mentioned by a media organization:

Taylor Maple (July 5, 2018). "12 Of The Scariest Movies On Netflix According To These Terrifying Wikipedia Synopses". Bustle. According to Wikipedia, Josef (Duplass) hires a videographer, Aaron, to come over to his house in the woods and film a movie.

OK so let's talk Bluerules (talk · contribs)

I believe the following are relevant to the plot:

"Aaron"'s recount of his first murder (because it offers fundamental insight on the character, because it meshes well with his demeanor and speech when he first meets the real Aaron, and because it is probably closer to the actual truth than anything else he has said in both films);
the fact "Aaron" declares he has never been intimate with a woman (because it plays with the audience's understanding that it could be true or false with equal likelihood and it adds to the dark comedic side of the building of his character, which is essential to the plot);
the fact that Dave is unambiguously killed onscreen (because its buildup adds fuel to the vaguely homoerotic aspect already present in the first film and central to his character, and because it gives the audience knowledge of how genuine his violence is, unlike Sarah who spends most of the film thinking Aaron's axe death was a fake);
the fact that the ages "Aaron" declares for himself to Dave and Sarah are not in chronological order (because it potentially places his interaction with Dave after his dealings with Sarah, thereby giving hints, or perhaps directing the audience's speculation, on what could have happened to her in the subway train);
Sarah's reaction when she notices the "whistler" is wisely left ambiguous; her smile freezes and I know, and you know, that it is probably "Aaron" who is whistling and will either slit her throat and leave the train before the doors close, or will murder her privately a while later; but probably is the operative word and it could easily be a role play between them, or some equally warped way of spending their time. Once it is established that the two of them have a very unusual interaction, any explanation could be possible and her blank expression could be ascribable to anything. That her expression is due to "horror" may be obvious to you or me, but it isn't to 100% of the audience.

I'd like to hear the reasons why you think none of the above is relevant. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* The plot section is not for "fundamental insight on the character", especially unconfirmed speculation/interpretation of a character. The plot section is for plot information; character information goes into a character page.

* Again, "the dark comedic side of the building of his character" relates to his character, not the plot of the film. It is not essential to the plot because it is a character interpretation. The plot section is not for a film audience, it is for encyclopedia readers, and encyclopedia readers are not supposed to be "played" with.

* Dave is not relevant to the overall plot. The purpose of Dave is to have someone for Aaron to express his dissatisfaction with his killings, instead of outright saying it to the audience. Since the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to outright inform, not tell a story, this information can be outright stated without reference to Dave. "The vaguely homoerotic aspect already present in the first film and central to his character" is further interpretation / character information not suited for a plot section and when the plot section already identifies Aaron as "a prolific serial killer" with "a past victim", the reader is aware of his violence.

* Speculation on the film's chronology is again not suited for the plot section. The statement "which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Again, this is not for an "audience", it's for a reader to be informed. Throwing in these details will only confuse the reader, especially when the events of the prologue don't impact the main story.

* It is irrelevant if the entire audience didn't realize that Sara reacted in horror to the individual. That was her reaction and because it happened in the film, it is accurate to say so. Once again, this is for readers - not an "audience". Bluerules (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* The plot section is not for "fundamental insight on the character", especially unconfirmed speculation/interpretation of a character. The plot section is for plot information; character information goes into a character page. The very first sentence of the plot in its current form is about insight on the character and his current state of mind and you didn't trim that. The fact this is essentially a Horror-of-personality film implies that character development and plot are indissociable and the fact that you're leaving sentences relating to the character's eccentricities, midlife crises or (controversially) Sara's horror means you probably realize that, too.

* Again, "the dark comedic side of the building of his character" relates to his character, not the plot of the film. It is not essential to the plot because it is a character interpretation. The plot section is not for a film audience, it is for encyclopedia readers, and encyclopedia readers are not supposed to be "played" with. Same answer as above. I understand that the task of informing about the events in the film is different from informing about the tone of the film, but both concepts are not antithetical, let alone incompatible, and if you restrict yourself to explaining what happens onscreen you're left with a 3-sentence telegram where not even Sara's "horror" (which you insist on leaving) belongs.

* Dave is not relevant to the overall plot. The purpose of Dave is to have someone for Aaron to express his dissatisfaction with his killings, instead of outright saying it to the audience. Since the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to outright inform, not tell a story, this information can be outright stated without reference to Dave. If Dave is the film's device to tell the audience about his dissatisfaction with the killings, how can you consider him irrelevant? If every plot device is irrelevant, the first film would be one huge plot device to tell us "Aaron" is a serial killer and thus reference to the "previous victim" would also be unnecessary. The task of informing can be carried out in more than one way.

"The vaguely homoerotic aspect already present in the first film and central to his character" is further interpretation / character information not suited for a plot section and when the plot section already identifies Aaron as "a prolific serial killer" with "a past victim", the reader is aware of his violence. agreed on the homoerotic being speculative, but I think I would have made my point clearer if I had replaced "knowledge of how genuine his violence is" with "a reminder of how genuine his violence is". This reminder gives the audience an advantage over Sara that contributes to the plot in ways that are not open to interpretation. And it cannot be irrelevant because it is the one murder that takes place uncontroversially, at a short distance and with visible aftermath. That alone makes it relevant in a dialogue-driven, mostly uneventful, film series.

*Speculation on the film's chronology is again not suited for the plot section. The statement "which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Again, this is not for an "audience", it's for a reader to be informed. Throwing in these details will only confuse the reader, especially when the events of the prologue don't impact the main story. this is probably the only issue where we could find a common ground, if only because there was no way to word the weird chronology in a manner suitable for a fluid read. It surely wouldn't be the first time nonlinear narrative impacts plot sections in Wikipedia articles (I can think of a few Tarantino films whose articles should be changed by that standard). However, like I said, if Dave appeared in Aaron's life after Sara, that is relevant because it means that the canonical interpretation is the correct one, thus Aaron survives the shovel blow and Sara is murdered in the (film's) end.

* It is irrelevant if the entire audience didn't realize that Sarah reacted in horror to the individual. That was her reaction and because it happened in the film, it is accurate to say so. Once again, this is for readers - not an "audience" see, those are your opinions. The lack of consensus on her reaction is relevant because I've spoken to people whose intelligence I respect whose initial interpretations about the ending were very different from those you and I seem to agree on. The camera breaks away too soon for any definite emotion to cristallize on her face, and that's a fact whether or not it suits your narrative. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

apropos the final item, just so I can make my point clear: if I had written "the film makes a point of breaking the camera away from Sara's face too soon", you would have every reason to edit that sentence off because it refers to the filmmakers' intentions and falls within the original research/speculative category whether we like it or not, and it belongs in a talk page, not in the plot section. But then again, so does labelling her expression as "horror". AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the content retained and the content you wish to add is the content retained is explicitly established in the film. It is not interpretation/speculation to say Aaron is undergoing a midlife crisis, Aaron performs eccentric behavior, or Sara reacts in horror to the individual filming her - and these are events that all happen within the film itself. Aaron's first murder does not happen in the film and it is unconfirmed if this murder took place. The midlife crisis is character development because it explains Aaron's actions during the film. Aaron's first murder is not character development when it doesn't explicitly impact his actions during the film, especially when it may not have happened. It's purely speculative. Keyword: fundamental insight, not simply "insight", isn't suited for the plot section.

Entertaining an audience and informing a reader are not interchangeable as you have been previously implying and more different than alike. The intent of an encyclopedic article is ultimately different from the intent of a narrative film. The purpose of the plot section is to inform the reader what exactly happens in a film and contrary to your assertion, restricting the section to "explaining what happens onscreen" - or to be more accurate, what explicitly happens in the film - generated a 293 word summary for an 80 minute film.

Again, Dave is irrelevant because his purpose to a film audience (who are to be entertained) doesn't apply to an encyclopedia reader (who are to be informed). Dave exists so Aaron can convey his midlife crisis in the context of a film - making the reveal suspenseful and disturbing instead of having Aaron outright say it. Since the article is out to inform, not entertain, Dave loses his purpose, and Aaron's reveal can be outright stated. To say this is calling all plot devices irrelevant is a strawman. The task of informing can be carried out in more than one way, but there are right ways and wrong ways. Mentioning Dave is the wrong way when the article has already established the important information; Aaron is dissatisfied with his killings.

Again, conflating "audience" with "reader". The very first sentence informs the reader that Aaron is "a prolific serial killer" and has "a past victim". Therefore, the reader immediately has this "advantage over Sara" by knowing that he is a serial killer. There is no need to remind the reader of what they already know - that is the very definition of superfluous. The prologue murder is 100% irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that "it is the one murder that takes place uncontroversially, at a short distance and with visible aftermath ... in a dialogue-driven, mostly uneventful, film series". It's only relevant if it impacts the overall story, factors not taken into consideration by your argument. It does not - Dave and his murder are never mentioned again.

Wikipedia guideline state that it is acceptable to write a film plot in chronological order, instead of the order presented in the film. In the case of this film, the chronology is a matter of interpretation. Claiming Dave's murder happened after the main events of the film is original research that is not allowed.

A face reacting in horror is a fact, not an opinion. It's brief, but it's there. It is irrelevant if some audience members don't notice this when it is verifiable. This would be like claiming it's acceptable to not draw a distinction between Steamboat Willie and the Waffen SS solider in Saving Private Ryan because the entire audience didn't realize they were separate characters. The fact is they were different - and horror was forming on Sara's face before the film ends. Bluerules (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not interpretation/speculation to say Aaron is undergoing a midlife crisis, Aaron performs eccentric behavior, or Sara reacts in horror to the individual filming her - and these are events that all happen within the film itself. I must remind you that so is Dave's murder.

Aaron's first murder does not happen in the film and it is unconfirmed if this murder took place. I'm not saying it happened, I'm saying it is part of Aaron's explanation in the film. He also explains that he plans to be killed by her, and that is revealed to be even less trustworthy a narrative than that of his first murder, yet you seem to be OK with that.

The midlife crisis is character development because it explains Aaron's actions during the film. Aaron's first murder is not character development when it doesn't explicitly impact his actions during the film, especially when it may not have happened. It's purely speculative. Keyword: fundamental insight, not simply "insight", isn't suited for the plot section. Well to be honest, his midlife crisis could play roughly the same role as the cancer documentary he fooled the real Aaron with in the first film. We only know about this crisis from his comments, not from his actions, and he is as an unreliable narrator as there can be. Thus, everything is open to speculation, not just Aaron's first murder.

Entertaining an audience and informing a reader are not interchangeable as you have been previously implying and more different than alike. The intent of an encyclopedic article is ultimately different from the intent of a narrative film. The purpose of the plot section is to inform the reader what exactly happens in a film and contrary to your assertion, restricting the section to "explaining what happens onscreen" - or to be more accurate, what explicitly happens in the film - generated a 293 word summary for an 80 minute film. "What exactly happens", that's the key. A lot of things happen in this film and for all we know, most of them might not be happening at all. This is not a Steven Seagal film, it is a complex movie with a whole Heisenberg cloud of potential events that are difficult to point exactly without speculating, hence they need a framework that will definitely be larger than a mere description of what meets the eye. In fact, no serious film would merit a plot section by that restrictive standard. And I never said or implied entertaining an audience was akin to informing the reader. Giving the audience context (which is what you mislabel as "entertaining") might not fall in the "synopsis" category but it certainly belongs in the "between 400 and 700 words" category which pertains to a plot section.

Again, Dave is irrelevant because his purpose to a film audience (who are to be entertained) doesn't apply to an encyclopedia reader (who are to be informed). Dave exists so Aaron can convey his midlife crisis in the context of a film - making the reveal suspenseful and disturbing instead of having Aaron outright say it. Since the article is out to inform, not entertain, Dave loses his purpose, and Aaron's reveal can be outright stated. To say this is calling all plot devices irrelevant is a strawman. The task of informing can be carried out in more than one way, but there are right ways and wrong ways. Mentioning Dave is the wrong way when the article has already established the important information; Aaron is dissatisfied with his killings. I insist, if that is the case then there's no need to even link the first film. More below.

Again, conflating "audience" with "reader". The very first sentence informs the reader that Aaron is "a prolific serial killer" and has "a past victim". Therefore, the reader immediately has this "advantage over Sara" by knowing that he is a serial killer. There is no need to remind the reader of what they already know - that is the very definition of superfluous. The prologue murder is 100% irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that "it is the one murder that takes place uncontroversially, at a short distance and with visible aftermath ... in a dialogue-driven, mostly uneventful, film series". It's only relevant if it impacts the overall story, factors not taken into consideration by your argument. It does not - Dave and his murder are never mentioned again. Well, I guess it boils down to what plot device we choose to convey he's a legit serial killer: a) the past victim, b) Dave's murder, c) both. You choose a) which belongs to another film and is so haphazardly filmed that it even fails to convince Sara for most of this film's running time. I choose b) because the filmmakers deemed it worth including despite the film's short length, and because its incontroversial nature gives the audience this advantage over Sara. You think I'm conflating audience with reader but that would only be a valid argument if I were making such a statement verbatim in the plot. Juggling with the facts to give the audience an inkling of the entire narrative context of the film is valid and advisable, and you seem to agree with this per your comments about chronological order.

Wikipedia guideline state that it is acceptable to write a film plot in chronological order, instead of the order presented in the film. In the case of this film, the chronology is a matter of interpretation. Claiming Dave's murder happened after the main events of the film is original research that is not allowed. True in general, but in this particular film it places a narrative burden on the final subway scene, because it proves there is some "story" after it.

A face reacting in horror is a fact, not an opinion. It's brief, but it's there. It is irrelevant if some audience members don't notice this when it is verifiable. This would be like claiming it's acceptable to not draw a distinction between Steamboat Willie and the Waffen SS solider in Saving Private Ryan because the entire audience didn't realize they were separate characters. The fact is they were different - and horror was forming on Sara's face before the film ends. "It's brief, but it's there" is an impression, not a fact. Hence it belongs precisely to the same category as mistaking the two German soldiers, not in the opposite category. I need to insist that the impression about her fate is shared by myself, in fact the minute I noticed Sara was stalked by the same person who edited the same fictional found footage, it was clear to me that a) that person was Aaron and b) he had been clever or single-minded enough to track her down, thus she was toast. I didn't even need the whistle taunt. But that was my impression. I've deliberately watched that final scene many times looking for an expression of horror and I may be a very poor empath, but I just see her stare becoming focused and serious. It is the context that gives her expression the "oh f*ck" nuance we ascribe to it. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the goalpost. The three details included in the plot section - Aaron is undergoing a midlife crisis, Aaron performs eccentric behavior, or Sara reacts in horror to the individual filming her - are explicitly depicted, but that is not the only reason why they are included. They are included because they are all key components of the story. Dave's murder, which never comes up again, is not. Being explicitly depicted is not immediate rationale for including information in the plot section - the point here was to demonstrate how these three events differ from the speculation/interpretation you wish to add.
Doesn't matter if the first murder "is part of Aaron's explanation in the film" - it is still an unconfirmed event that wouldn't have happened during the present day events and has no bearing on the story. Aaron telling Sara he wants her to kill him does impact the story because it relates directly to Sara's documentary on Aaron, the main storyline. It was an event that could have still happened, unlike something that may have happened in the past, with major repercussions on the story, and demonstrates how Aaron's actions are changing.
Aaron's midlife crisis does not play the same role as the cancer documentary in the first film. The cancer documentary was the pretense for luring the real Aaron and getting the documentary filmed. Aaron discusses the midlife crisis with a victim he's done manipulating. He doesn't have motivation to lie about it, especially when he's being honest about everything else. And the midlife crisis is demonstrated by his actions when he becomes frustrated by killing Dave. Therefore, this is not open to speculation. This is explicitly shown - Aaron's first murder is not.
This is not a David Lynch film. This is a film set in the real world, presented as being filmed in the real world. Everything that happens onscreen happens and to interpret otherwise would be your personal interpretation that falls into original research. Plot sections do not "speculate" - they report on precisely what happens, regardless of alternate interpretations. The "framework that will definitely be larger than a mere description of what meets the eye" belongs in a "themes and analysis" section, not the plot section. This prevents the film's actual events (the plot) and varying, contradicting interpretations from being conflated. And such interpretations cannot be original research; they must be supported by a source. All serious films do merit plot sections by this "restrictive" standard - refer to the Eraserhead article where the plot section focuses on solely what happens in the film, despite their surreal nature. And that's a featured article. You continue to advocate for audience "speculation" - entertainment for them - but what you mislabel as context doesn't belong in the plot section. It is speculation, which therefore belongs in the themes and analysis section. But that's only if the speculation is supported by a source; otherwise, it is original research that does not belong anywhere in the article.
There is need to link the first film because Aaron has named himself after his victim in the first film. This actually has bearing over the main story because of the name Aaron is using. Dave's murder, which is never brought up again, does not.
It does not boil "down to what plot device we choose to convey he's a legit serial killer". You choose to mention a scene that has no bearing on the main story and never comes up again. I choose to outright say he is a serial killer. It is not dependent on the plot device of the past victim - the past victim is referenced to give context on Aaron's name. Another strawman. You are conflating the audience with the reader because you want Dave's murder included over its explicit nature to the audience. To the reader, all they need to know is that Aaron is a serial killer, and they're informed of that from the start without the need for a plot device. By being informed from the start, they have the "advantage" over Sara. Focusing on the most important facts is more valid and advisable - it's valid and advisable to omit a superfluous scene that doesn't benefit the reader. The filmmakers deemed it necessary for the audience, but the audience is not the reader.
Any further story after the subway scene is original research and therefore not permissible.
There is no arguing a facial expression. A facial expression is a facial expression, just as the two German soldiers were played by different actors. To discuss what happens to Sara after the camera cuts away would be speculation. But her facial expression is not. Despite this, I am open to removing it - because this is an example of brevity. Bluerules (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the goalpost. The three details included in the plot section - Aaron is undergoing a midlife crisis, Aaron performs eccentric behavior, or Sara reacts in horror to the individual filming her - are explicitly depicted, but that is not the only reason why they are included. They are included because they are all key components of the story. Dave's murder, which never comes up again, is not. Being explicitly depicted is not immediate rationale for including information in the plot section - the point here was to demonstrate how these three events differ from the speculation/interpretation you wish to add. First of all, I insist his midlife crisis, just like the cancer in film 1, can only be accepted as a fact if we accept Aaron's narrative and he is an unreliable narrator. He quotes Coppola to exemplify his acceptance of such crisis and an hour later he doesn't even remember he did when Sara brings it up. His body language and face expressions don't help much because they oscillate between the deliberately inscrutable and the tongue-in-cheek depending on the moment. Even his alleged quest for a friend or a soulmate (which is the running joke in the whole series) could be 100% faked, hence he could be a pure sociopath with a full grip on reality and not the "Teletubby serial killer" buttressing the comedic side of the film. We don't know that for sure, and that's the point of the film series.

Doesn't matter (...) Therefore, this is not open to speculation. This is explicitly shown - Aaron's first murder is not. Of course it plays the same role, as said above. How do you know he has a midlife crisis? How do you know he doesn't have motivation to lie about it? How do you know he's being honest about anything else? For all we know, he's not even telling the characters (or the audience) his exact age each time. You don't know if he's done manipulating Dave when he tells him about his crisis because there's little by way of explanation of how he corners his victims into the kill box. You don't know if he's being honest about everything else and that is e.x.a.c.t.l.y the point of the entire film series: to let the viewer form their own conclusion. You are ascribing him sincerity without having a full knowledge of his motivations, when in fact every single thing he says could have a reason to be a lie--maybe not a reason we could glean, but definitely a reason that would make sense to him.

Your defense of discriminating between what part of Aaron's statements should be included and what portion shouldn't doesn't hold much water. Aaron telling Sara he wants to kill her is at least as important as him saying he has a midlife crisis, because he has been shown capable of the former. Him sadly stroking Dave's head and maintaining the "I'm depressed and in a midlife crisis" facade while Dave bleeds to death, on the other hand, could have the same "dramatic" value as his declaration of love for the real Aaron while he watches the snuff film in Creep 1 because don't forget: the films are probably edited by him and could be his warped way of filming a "drama".

This is not a David Lynch film. (...) This actually has bearing over the main story because of the name Aaron is using. Dave's murder, which is never brought up again, does not. But I'm not speculating or interpreting anything, precisely most of what I had left written was of the form "Aaron says" or "apparently" or "allegedly". Even the midlife crisis you so defend, should be put in quarantine in the plot as far as I'm concerned. You advocate for the removal of those apparentlys or allegedlys but that's your way of telling me that there are some things Aaron's narrative that you do believe, whereas I believe none and would like a plot as as aseptic (meaning empty of statements that are not true) as possible. That is the opposite of speculation. Everything you've written would make sense if I had filled the text with sentences such as "The film ends on a disturbing coda, which although potentially as manipulative as the rest of the plot, seems to show Aaron stalking and then (offscreen) murdering Sara in a New York subway". But that's obviously the opposite of what I've done.

It does not boil "down to what plot device we choose to convey he's a legit serial killer". You choose to mention a scene that has no bearing on the main story and never comes up again. I choose to outright say he is a serial killer. It is not dependent on the plot device of the past victim - the past victim is referenced to give context on Aaron's name. Another strawman. You are conflating the audience with the reader because you want Dave's murder included over its explicit nature to the audience. To the reader, all they need to know is that Aaron is a serial killer, and they're informed of that from the start without the need for a plot device. By being informed from the start, they have the "advantage" over Sara. Focusing on the most important facts is more valid and advisable - it's valid and advisable to omit a superfluous scene that doesn't benefit the reader. The filmmakers deemed it necessary for the audience, but the audience is not the reader. There you are again discriminating between what part of Aaron's narrative is valid and what part is not. Because after all, in the fictional world these are probably videos edited by Aaron. If Aaron chooses to include Dave's murder in his fictional "drama", he must have his reasons and we don't know them. By trying to make Dave's murder less relevant than most of what he says about Coppola (which be a bunch of hogwash for all we know), you're channeling your version of Aaron's narrative into the plot. The best way to avoid doing that is by giving a neutral account with a neutral context. I agree that the disquisition on chronology about Aaron's ages could be left out because it borders on speculation, but if Dave weren't relevant to Aaron, Brice and Duplass he wouldn't occupy 7 minutes in an 80 minute film. That would be very shoddy editing on their behalf.

Any further story after the subway scene is original research and therefore not permissible. There is no arguing a facial expression. A facial expression is a facial expression, just as the two German soldiers were played by different actors. To discuss what happens to Sara after the camera cuts away would be speculation. But her facial expression is not. Despite this, I am open to removing it - because this is an example of brevity. I insist that the reason it qualifies as an expression of horror is because it would probably morph into one if the camera took a further second to cut away. You see an expression, I see a prelude to one. There's obviously a germ of an expression but what that expression could be is open to (drums roll)... speculation. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring how the context for Aaron's cancer documentary and midlife crisis are completely different. Once again, the cancer documentary was created precisely for deceptive purposes - to gain the trust of a videographer. That does not apply to his midlife crisis, where instead of using it to deceive, he reveals it during moments where he's being honest about himself. He admits it when he's confessing his true nature to Dave and says it to Sara while he's acknowledging what he actually does. Just because Aaron is an unreliable narrator does not mean everything he says is supposed to be doubted. When he discusses the real Aaron's murder in the first film, he is being honest. He demonstrates that the real Aaron was his favorite victim by placing a heart on recording. Aaron's body language and face expressions perfectly help because he has no one to mess with after killing Dave. He has no reason to pretend that he's unhappy. When he's by himself, he shows his true nature - as the first film demonstrated - and in the case of the second film, killing Dave has left him frustrated.
It does not play the same role, as stated above. Once again, you are comparing a deliberatively deceptive tactic used to gain trust with a stranger to a confession made amid confessions to someone whose trust he's already gained. Aaron reveals the midlife crisis while revealing that he's been recording Dave. The film outright demonstrates that he's been recording Dave by depicting the scene through Aaron's camera. If you are questioning Aaron's honesty, despite the film outright demonstrating that he's telling the truth about his recording, then it's questionable if you've paid attention during the film. Aaron doesn't have motivation to lie about the midlife crisis because unlike the cancer documentary, it doesn't make him more sympathetic and instead, it makes him less approachable. Hence why he admits it while admitting other details that are turning Dave away, not luring Dave towards him. It is obvious that he is done manipulating Dave because he is revealing his true intentions - reveals that push Dave away - right before killing him (making Aaron indeed done with Dave) and anyone who's actually watched the film knows this. It is obvious Aaron was being honest about recording Dave because again, the film outright demonstrates this, and anyone who's actually watched the film knows this. So no, the exact point of the entire film series is not to let the viewer form their own conclusion, especially when the first film outright explained why the real Aaron was Josef's favorite victim. The exact point of the entire film series is to keep the audience in suspense over what will happen next. Aaron's reveal of having a midlife crisis keeps the audience in suspense over how it will impact his actions, especially in comparison to the first film. The midlife crisis is seen in his actions, making any doubt towards his motivations irrelevant. You theorize there could be reason for Aaron to lie about it, but don't provide any specific reasons - because there are none.
Comparing Aaron's plans to have Sara kill him and touching Dave's head doesn't hold water. Neither does comparing Aaron touching Dave to declaring the real Aaron to be his favorite victim because unlike the other events, touching Dave's head doesn't impact the main story. Josef's declaration at the end of the first film is what makes the murder significant to him and the plans he expresses in the second film demonstrate changes to the ongoing documentary (the main story of the film). Aaron touching Dave's head is a small, trivial detail that wouldn't change the story if it was left out. It's not the catharsis of the first film's ending. You can spin this as "discrimination", but the guidelines for plot summaries make it clear that only certain information should be included; information that directly impacts the story. And to assert "the films are probably edited by him and could be his warped way of filming a 'drama'" is further original research that is not permitted.
You are speculating/interpreting when you write that Aaron "declares himself to be slightly younger--which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" in the plot section. That is speculation over the film's chronology. The other content you wish to add is to generate speculation/interpretation of Aaron (his first murder "offers fundamental insight on the character", his lack of intimacy "plays with the audience's understanding that it could be true or false"), which is not permitted in the plot section and not permitted in the article when it is original research. The "apparentlys or allegedlys" aren't taken into consideration when including information - information is included because of its importance to the actual story. Aaron's midlife crisis is important to the story because it shapes his differing approach. It's why his approach is different in the sequel. And it's an event that actually does happen in the film, as noted above.
It may seem cute to spin proper editing as "discriminating", but Wikipedia's own guidelines state that plot summaries "should not cover every scene and every moment of a story". Establishing Aaron as a serial killer is integral because it explains who he is to the reader. Mentioning why he calls himself Aaron provides important context to the reader, in addition to establishing that "Aaron" is not his real name. Dave's murder has no such benefit it is omitted because it has no bearing on the main story, never being mentioned again. You use original research to support mentioning Dave - "in the fictional world these are probably videos edited by Aaron". Not only is this original research that's uncited and unproven, it has no bearing on what is covered by the plot summary. Information is covered not based on a character's version of the narrative, but the important events that occur. Aaron's midlife crisis is again included because of its importance to the plot, its impact on the events that occur. That is a neutral account with a neutral context. Using original, unconfirmed research to support an inclusion is the opposite of a neutral account with a neutral context. What's relevant to a character is not relevant to a Wikipedia reader. Once again, you are conflating the film's audience with Wikipedia's readers. Dave is in the film for the benefit of the audience, to provide a suspenseful sequence that establishes Aaron's midlife crisis instead of having him outright say it. That is not applicable to a plot summary, where information is outright stated to the reader. As the guidelines point out, "Do not attempt to re-create the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the original."
A facial expression is not speculative. If you are not convinced that she had an expression of horror, then other editors should be asked towards what they saw. Personally, I have removed the reference because it helps cut back on the summary. Bluerules (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring how the context for Aaron's cancer documentary and midlife crisis are completely different. Once again, the cancer documentary was created precisely for deceptive purposes - to gain the trust of a videographer. That does not apply to his midlife crisis, where instead of using it to deceive, he reveals it during moments where he's being honest about himself. He admits it when he's confessing his true nature to Dave and says it to Sara while he's acknowledging what he actually does. Just because Aaron is an unreliable narrator does not mean everything he says is supposed to be doubted. When he discusses the real Aaron's murder in the first film, he is being honest. He demonstrates that the real Aaron was his favorite victim by placing a heart on recording. Aaron's body language and face expressions perfectly help because he has no one to mess with after killing Dave. He has no reason to pretend that he's unhappy. When he's by himself, he shows his true nature - as the first film demonstrated - and in the case of the second film, killing Dave has left him frustrated. They are only different from your point of view because it probably works for your idea of the film. It is you who decides that his midlife crisis is genuine, and I'll take a wild guess that the only reason you stick to that theory is because he is objectively approaching what a "normal" person would call middle age. But if we are supposed to believe (in another leap of faith) his claims that he didn't have a normal childhood or a normal adolescence or even a normal sexual awakening, then why should we suddenly believe his claims that this normal stage of life, and not the previous ones, was the stage that he ended up having at the right time (a midlife crisis during middle age)? Have you never watched a toddler trying to act precocious by saying "I'm getting too old for this" just because they heard their parents say it? After all, if he is a psychopath, he fits the definition of an emotional toddler because that's what defines psychopaths. And why would a psychopath even be depressed about losing his skills as a killer? Can a psychopath like him be depressed? Or is he not a psychopath? Do we know anything about him besides what he says or does? Everything he says is supposed to be doubted, not denied altogether. It's two different things.

It does not play the same role, as stated above. Once again, you are comparing a deliberatively deceptive tactic used to gain trust with a stranger to a confession made amid confessions to someone whose trust he's already gained. Aaron reveals the midlife crisis while revealing that he's been recording Dave. (...) And to assert "the films are probably edited by him and could be his warped way of filming a 'drama'" is further original research that is not permitted. What I meant by him stroking Dave and remaining apparently despondent and bored after killing him, is that you were implicitly (and now explicitly) making the point that if his midlife crisis claims were not genuine, he would have dropped them as soon as he cut Dave's throat. The fact he doesn't drop the facade (if it were) after the object of his manipulation does not need to be manipulated any further, could be ascribed to the fact that he is filming the whole thing. That was my entire point. You're convinced that he has no reason to lie to Dave because his manipulation arc has reached its conclusion but neither of us knows what purpose does this fictional film serve. And Aaron has a history of making "home movies" designed to elicit emotions from the audience (e.g. himself) and even jump-scaring himself in one case. Perhaps Dave is less relevant than Dave's murder scene. Or perhaps not. For the record, I do think that he is at least trying to convince himself that he has a midlife crisis (and perhaps having the closest to one someone like him can have) but there's a whole battery of potential opinions that could be elicited by that scene and the plot is not about writing opinions.

You are speculating/interpreting when you write that Aaron "declares himself to be slightly younger--which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" in the plot section. That is speculation over the film's chronology. like I said, this is the bit that is not amenable to a nice wording and I'm OK to leave it out.

The other content you wish to add is to generate speculation/interpretation of Aaron (his first murder "offers fundamental insight on the character", his lack of intimacy "plays with the audience's understanding that it could be true or false"), which is not permitted in the plot section and not permitted in the article when it is original research. The "apparentlys or allegedlys" aren't taken into consideration when including information - information is included because of its importance to the actual story. Aaron's midlife crisis is important to the story because it shapes his differing approach. It's why his approach is different in the sequel. And it's an event that actually does happen in the film, as noted above. to the risk of sounding trite I must insist: you're contradicting yourself in this paragraph because his midlife crisis is another "allegedly" in and of itself. For all we know, he could have learned what a midlife crisis is from reading it in a novel or watching it in a film or speaking to someone. Just like Matt Dillon learns how to grimace by looking at pictures in Von Trier's latest film.

It may seem cute to spin proper editing as "discriminating", but Wikipedia's own guidelines state that plot summaries "should not cover every scene and every moment of a story". Establishing Aaron as a serial killer is integral because it explains who he is to the reader. Mentioning why he calls himself Aaron provides important context to the reader, in addition to establishing that "Aaron" is not his real name. Dave's murder has no such benefit it is omitted because it has no bearing on the main story, never being mentioned again. I agree that not everything needs to be covered per se but Dave's murder is more graphic than what is shown in the first film (that grants it differential relevance), and anyone who didn't watch the first film will only have this scene to understand the dramatic irony affecting Sara's belief that Aaron is bullshitting her every time he calls himself a serial killer. I think those two facts merit an inclusion in the plot, you don't, it's fine to agree to disagree and there's no reason why we wouldn't bring a third pair of eyes to look into this.

You use original research to support mentioning Dave - "in the fictional world these are probably videos edited by Aaron". Not only is this original research that's uncited and unproven, it has no bearing on what is covered by the plot summary. Information is covered not based on a character's version of the narrative, but the important events that occur. I'm stating "in the fictional world these are probably videos edited by Aaron" in the talk page, not in the article. My edits to the article made no mention of who was the author of the footage.

Aaron's midlife crisis is again included because of its importance to the plot, its impact on the events that occur. That is a neutral account with a neutral context. Again: a guy who quotes an interview by Coppola and forgets about it an hour later, needs everything he says to seen from a very skeptical distance. Including the midlife crisis. If he lies about his name, his age, his reasons for luring videographers or his murderous intent, it is fair to say that everything he says may or may not be true. Including the "I really really like you" speech he uses to keep Sara from leaving after he freaks her out.

Using original, unconfirmed research to support an inclusion is the opposite of a neutral account with a neutral context. What's relevant to a character is not relevant to a Wikipedia reader. Once again, you are conflating the film's audience with Wikipedia's readers. Dave is in the film for the benefit of the audience, to provide a suspenseful sequence that establishes Aaron's midlife crisis instead of having him outright say it. That is not applicable to a plot summary, where information is outright stated to the reader. As the guidelines point out, "Do not attempt to re-create the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the original." Re-creating the emotional impact would entail a number of things I'm not defending, such as: omitting Aaron's murderousness until the end just because that's what he does with Sara, building up an expectation for the film's climax instead of glossing over most of the middle part of the film or taking his statements about himself at face value (which, incidentally, you seem to have a predisposition to do) instead of being skeptical (which is what I do). The last sentence in the plot for Basic Instinct is "As they discuss their future, an ice pick is revealed to be under the bed. " That would qualify as impact recreation too by your standard. I don't consider it to be impact recreation; I call it objective description. Bottom line is: if the facts as stated have an impact it's because the film's plot is designed to impact; I understand that we're not supposed to actively attempt to enhance this impact in our writing, but that doesn't mean we can prevent some of it from trickling into the written plot by the sheer narrative force of what the plot contains. Trying to would also be an active attempt to tweak the plot's impact (in the opposite direction).

A facial expression is not speculative. If you are not convinced that she had an expression of horror, then other editors should be asked towards what they saw. Personally, I have removed the reference because it helps cut back on the summary. Stating that she suddenly gains focus after seeing the person who is filming her wouldn't hurt the plot but I guess we can agree on this point. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the film itself that decided Aaron's midlife crisis is genuine. Aaron admits it while he is admitting to secretly recording Dave (an objective truth) and it is the basis for his behavior in the film, which is distinctively different from the first. There is not a single valid argument to contradict the fact that Aaron is undergoing a midlife crisis in the second film. Every argument doubting his midlife crisis is based in unconfirmed speculation and an incorrect notion that "everything he says is supposed to be doubted". There are key points in both films where Aaron is showing his true self. In the first film, he is telling the truth when he considers the real Aaron to be his favorite victim and he demonstrates it by specially marking the recording. In this film, the opening sequence demonstrates the impact of his midlife crisis, which continues when he outright admits his true nature to Sara. He pursues a different approach in the second film because of the midlife crisis. The opening scene exists to demonstrate he's lost his joy in killing, regardless of what alternate interpretations may say.
Much of your argument is based on an unconfirmed theory that the entire film is presented as being edited by Aaron. Found footage isn't meant to be taken that literally - in Chronicle, the first camera is destroyed and footage during the final battle would have been inaccessible to the protagonist. Found footage is simply a visual medium without an omnipresent camera and the audience accepts the shifts in footage, disregarding who (if anyone) is editing it. As such, this film disregards how the footage came together - the fact that it immediately cuts to the title credits after Dave's murder demonstrates that it's not pretending to have been edited by a fictional character. Furthermore, Aaron does not put on an act in his recordings (which are private to him, by the way) when he is alone. He demonstrated this during his admission of the real Aaron's murder in the first film and he does it again after killing Dave. There are no "opinions" about this scene, it is a fact that he becomes frustrated after killing Dave because of his midlife crisis. Dave's only purpose is to establish the midlife crisis in the context of a narrative film. Once again, there are no concrete arguments to disprove the midlife crisis.
This is why the detail about Aaron's age should be excluded.
Once again, the midlife crisis is not another "allegedly" in and of itself because it is demonstrated by the film itself. Once again, there has not been a single concrete argument to demonstrate the midlife crisis is "alleged". Your example from The House that Jack Built is outright depicted. This film does not outright depict Aaron faking the midlife crisis. Instead, the film outright depicts him having the midlife crisis because he is having it. There is evidence for him having the midlife crisis, there is no evidence against it, and these factors perfectly demonstrate why it exists.
This is where the "Do not attempt to re-create the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary" guideline comes into play. The graphic nature of Dave's death and the dramatic irony of Sara not believing Aaron have no bearing on the plot summary. The plot summary exists only to inform - the necessary information, which is provided clearly and concisely, is that Aaron is a serial killer. No other editor would support adding details that are tied to the film's emotional impact.
Your rationale for including Dave is still based in original research about the film. As mentioned above, the film (like many others in the found footage subgenre) disregards the "author". Therefore, however it was edited together does not have any bearing on what should or shouldn't be mentioned.
Again, both films do not treat Aaron as being unreliable with everything he says and does. Both films establish him as being honest when he is by himself. It is not fair to say his declaration of the real Aaron being his favorite victim is not true because he demonstrates it in the following scene. Likewise, he demonstrates the impact of his midlife crisis after killing Dave. All of this doubt towards Aaron is based on what he says. His actions tell a different story; his actions support his midlife crisis reveal.
Re-creating the emotional impact has still been a motivation for your additions. It's your rationale for mentioning Dave's murder. And it has been your rationale for including speculation about Aaron: you want his first murder included "because it offers fundamental insight on the character" and you want his lack of intimacy mentioned "because it plays with the audience's understanding that it could be true or false with equal likelihood". You even described "the dark comedic side of the building of his character" as "essential to the plot", which is precisely trying to re-create the emotional impact. And that's not the only reason why your speculation about Aaron was removed; the point here is your motivation for including this speculation is based on a guideline violation. It is also being removed because it does not impact the story. No, the last sentence of the Basic Instinct plot summary does not qualify as "impact recreation" by this standard. It is included because it is a key part of the story; any emotional impact is incidental. What you want included is not a key part of the story and again, your motivation for including it is based on impact recreation. Aaron's midlife crisis, on the other hand, is a factual, key part of the story that is included because it is a key part of the story.
The last sentence has been edited accordingly. Bluerules (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the pervading motif in each one of your items is twofold: a) his midlife crisis is genuine, and b) doubting all of Aaron's statements is akin to flatly denying them outright. a) is couched on your own interpretation of the film and b) is false.
About a): you're mistaking my appraisal of the audience's freedom of interpretation with a rigid choice of one interpretation different from yours. If I say that Aaron acting despondent even after killing Dave could mean a number of things, I am not saying that he must be necessarily faking it because the camera is still rolling and he'll watch the whole thing later as though it were a kinky drama; I'm saying that is one of many possible interpretations. It doesn't coincide with yours but part of the interest of this film (and I'm obviously saying this in the talk page, not in the plot) is how little it commits to either interpretation and how much freedom of interpretation it grants the audience. You like your interpretation: fine. I must admit I don't even have a consistent interpretation and every time I think of the film I come up with a different theory: fine as well. A midlife crisis, like any similar crisis, is a set of symptoms, not a set of signs. It doesn't translate in getting a greenish complexion or a black tongue or jaundice or a bump under his left armpit. It is only felt by the individual who may then show or hide behavioral traits arising from these symptoms, and any intelligent individual (and Aaron may have a number of character flaws, but low intellect is probably not one of them) has not only the option to hide those traits, but to fake them as well. Simple as that. Does it mean he's faking them? No, it's only one of the possible interpretations. I may believe that a guy who doesn't even remember mentioning Coppola an hour earlier is faking the entire thing but that's just what I perceive; other people's perceptions can be different.
Still about a): I am not saying this has to be a literal found footage and that everything has been filmed and edited by Aaron; again, that is one possible interpretation. If one writes a neutral plot that does not take sides with any interpretation, they will end up replicating part of the impact of the film whether you like it or not because the film's impact was couched solely on the uncertainty element (infused with an element of irony which of course none of my plot edits replicated) and this uncertainty is indissociable from the plot. The impact of the film is based on the uncertainty on whether or not Aaron is sincere about his intentions--not only because he has gained the audience's attention and curiosity, but because it reflects on the immediate fate of potential victims that we're supposed to care about. If you only talk about his midlife crisis, then of course that "impact" is gone, but that's only because in your neutering process you cut off the uncertainty element and you're basically explaining the plot of your perspective of the film.
About b): skepticism isn't denial. Doubting is not the same as denying. Aaron lies a lot. Does that mean he lies all the time? I don't know. You're mistaking "I don't know" with "yeah he lies all the time". AnyDosMilVint (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The midlife crisis being genuine is pervasive because there has not been a single shred of evidence to disprove it. This not "my interpretation"; this is a fact explicitly conveyed by the film. At no point have I said that "doubting all of Aaron's statements is akin to flatly denying them outright" - rather I am pointing out why it is incorrect to doubt everything Aaron says, particularly when the film explicitly confirms it. To make this claim about my points is yet another strawman.
You are mistaking the audience being asked to interpret ambiguous content with the audience being allowed to interpret everything, even if the content is not up for alternate interpretations. It is not a "freedom of the audience". In Saving Private Ryan, the audience is technically free to interpret Steamboat Willie and the Waffen SS solider who kills Mellish as the same character, but it is still wrong. The audience is technically free to interpret Aaron's midlife crisis as not genuine, but it still wrong. Again, this not my "interpretation". It is a fact directly supported by the film itself in the dialogue, actions, and impact on the story. You can spin this as "rigid", but it is "rigid" because concrete facts are rigid. Once again, there is nothing concrete to contest Aaron's midlife crisis. How a midlife crisis manifests in the real world has no bearing on a fictional character in a fictional film. These alternate perceptions don't hold up - because Aaron's midlife crisis is a fact.
The problem with the interpretation of the film's editing is just that - it's an interpretation. Aaron's midlife crisis, as noted above, is not. As far as emotional impact goes, you are completely missing the point. The point is content does not go into the plot section based on emotional impact; it goes into the plot section based on its importance to the story. If any emotional impact is replicated, that is incidental. What you want is to add content based on the emotional impact, which is not permitted by the guidelines. The uncertainty and sympathy for Aaron's victims that you want added is a violation of the guidelines because you want it added for the emotional impact. What you spin as a "neutering process" is following the guidelines. The uncertainty element is cut out because it is not important to the storyline and exists only for emotional replication, a guideline violation. The plot is explained from a factual perspective, not an individual person's perspective, because once again, Aaron's midlife crisis is not an interpretation - it is a fact.
Again, this is a strawman. You want to cast doubt on everything Aaron says because of his track record in the films. The problem is that not everything he does is supposed to be doubted. When he declares the real Aaron to be his favorite victim, he is telling the truth. When he tells the truth, the film demonstrates he is telling the truth. You're trying to apply the "I don't know" to every instance when certain things are known - like the midlife crisis. Bluerules (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a long circumlocution to avoid addressing the main issue, which is that the entire "midlife crisis" mien he carries around could be an act. There are shreds to disprove what you're saying, I pointed out him forgetting or not caring about his earlier statements on Coppola (which you persist in avoiding to tackle in your responses) precisely because it's classical behaviour in psychopaths and in compulsive liars.
"even if the content is not up for alternate interpretations" well it turns out it is because I'm neither autistic nor stupid and my interpretation is at least as good as yours from my POV. Saving Private Ryan is a good example for my point, not for yours. It is a film designed to manipulate the audience, in this case to make them angry. Mac Steinmeier and Joerg Stadler are indeed two different actors but they look alike and are symbiotically identified, and if you watch that film you come out of the theater thinking all WWII German soldiers were sadistic Waffen SS officers in their late 30s instead of mostly scared, apolitical or politically immature, acne-specked 20 year old kids which is what most of them were in the Wehrmacht by then. Instead of questioning why experienced casting, editing and screenwriting staff would make the "mistake" of avoiding similarities between the two characters, you take their similarity much like you'd take the weather outside: as an acceptable default. Although it could just as well be a conscious decision by Spielberg to feed the narrative that Americans were all good and Germans were all clones of a Jew-stabbing psycho. That reflects on your failure to realize that cinema is about manipulation, but cinema will keep doing it and won't wait for you to realize it does. Should the fact that the two Germans were different occupy any space in the plot for SPR? No, it is OK as it is. It neither follows Spielberg's manichaean narrative (which would constitute original research), nor puts any emphasis on the fact that they are different people. Would adding the fact that Mellish is stabbed by a Waffen SS officer hurt the plot? It wouldn't, either, because it is not a lie and it adds more information about the plot.
On that note, and perhaps with a wider perspective, you can now go back to Aaron and assess his "midlife crisis" with a similar distance, knowing that the screenwriters' intention is to manipulate you, in this case into uncertainty. Or you cannot. You have the freedom to consider your interpretation as the canonical one but other people think otherwise with at least equally powerful reason.
How a midlife crisis manifests in the real world has no bearing on a fictional character in a fictional film. These alternate perceptions don't hold up - because Aaron's midlife crisis is a fact. So if the "midlife crisis" should not be anchored according to you on known evidence about real-life midlife crises, then what should it be based upon? Aaron's speech and mannerisms? Because of course he wouldn't be lying to you, Dave or Sara would he? Don't you realize that you're always destined to contradict yourself if you persist on this?
The problem with the interpretation of the film's editing is just that - it's an interpretation. Aaron's midlife crisis, as noted above, is not. What is not an interpretation? The textbook midlife crisis behavioral traits you dismiss because they have no bearing on a fictional character? Or the ones he does display in the film which, whether or not based on the textbook ones, he could be faking?
As far as emotional impact goes, you are completely missing the point. The point is content does not go into the plot section based on emotional impact; it goes into the plot section based on its importance to the story. If any emotional impact is replicated, that is incidental. well that's what I was trying to say earlier.
What you want is to add content based on the emotional impact, which is not permitted by the guidelines. No I'm not. Uncertainty isn't just emotional impact here: it may entail two or more different films (even two radically different sets of offscreen events) depending on which interpretation you have. That's more than just emotional impact and after this long discussion it's about time this is understood fully.
The uncertainty and sympathy for Aaron's victims that you want added is a violation of the guidelines because you want it added for the emotional impact. I'm not trying to add any sympathy, and uncertainty is the key to the story whether or not you like it. Basic paradox: shorter stories with complex underbellies usually have longer plots. And viceversa.
The uncertainty element is cut out because it is not important to the storyline and exists only for emotional replication, a guideline violation. No, it exists also because it offers starkly different potential explanations for the plot itself (by way of ascribing different potential intentions to the lead character). I would call that important.
The plot is explained from a factual perspective, not an individual person's perspective, because once again, Aaron's midlife crisis is not an interpretation - it is a fact. And that, alas, is your individual perspective.
Again, this is a strawman. You want to cast doubt on everything Aaron says because of his track record in the films. The problem is that not everything he does is supposed to be doubted. And who draws the line on what should be doubted and what not? You? Are you Mark Duplass or Patrick Brice? AnyDosMilVint (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a long circumlocution to avoid addressing the main issue, which is that there is not a single shred of concrete evidence to refute the midlife crisis. Unfortunately, simply saying "there are shreds to disprove" does not mean there is anything to disprove it and there isn't. Everything you try disproving the midlife crisis with are hypotheticals and theoreticals, but there is nothing concrete because there is none. This fixation on the Coppola lines, which you haven't elaborated on, is you fishing for small pieces of dialogue that are debunked by Aaron's actions. No matter what trivial dialogue you focus on, Aaron is explicitly shown changing the approach for his video and the established motivation for this is his midlife crisis. Focusing on "classical behaviour in psychopaths and in compulsive liars" is focusing on further hypotheticals and theoreticals that lack concrete evidence and don't hold up when compared to the concrete evidence of Aaron changing his video.
This whole rant trying to justify people being objectively wrong about Saving Private Ryan reflects on your failure to realize that not everything in cinema is up to interpretation. Your interpretation may be good from your POV, but like how a flat-Earther's interpretation of the Earth being flat looks good from their perspective, it is still wrong. Saving Private Ryan is a good example for my point, not for yours, because it demonstrates that certain interpretations are flat-out wrong. For all your talk about manipulation, you fail to recognize where the actual manipulation occurs with Steamboat Willie and the Waffen SS soldier. Steamboat Willie challenges the audience with the cost of being human during a war (the theoretical no good deed goes unpunished), the Waffen SS soldier challenges the audience with a disturbing sequence that risks eliminating sympathy for Upham. These are accomplished without manipulating the audience into believing they are the same character - in fact, it doesn't make sense in the narrative for them to be the same when Steamboat Willie recognizes Upham and the Waffen SS soldier doesn't. There wasn't any mistake made by experienced casting, editing, and screenwriting staff - the characters have different personalities, different uniforms, and different appearances (chiefly, Steamboat Willie has distinct facial injuries that the Waffen SS soldier does not have). Mac Steinmeier and Joerg Stadler don't even look alike - Steinmeier is younger and bigger. The only reason they are mistaken for each other is because all the Germans are given shaved heads, an artistic decision, not a mistake. If the filmmakers wanted them mistaken for each other, they wouldn't have been placed in different military units and given different personalities. Despite thinking you understand "cinema manipulation", you've put forth another incorrect interpretation. Saving Private Ryan is clearly not presenting Germans as "clones of a Jew-stabbing psycho" when the Waffen SS soldier comforts Mellish while killing him and then spares Upham. You are trying to find "manipulation" where there is none. And this has nothing to do with what goes into a plot summary, but if the Waffen SS soldier was mentioned, he would be identified as a separate character because he factually is one. He's not mentioned because he's not needed - the important thing is Mellish dies during the final battle. How he dies isn't important to the overall story.
This incorrect analysis of "manipulation" changes nothing about Aaron's factually correct midlife crisis. Spinning as incorrect interpretation as being manipulated by the writers does not change the interpretation from being incorrect. You chose to be manipulated by the screenwriters because you did not understand them, despite them not intending to manipulate you in this certain way. Next, you're going to start defending the interpretation that the "Jeremy" music video ends with him shooting his classmates. A lot people thought that's how the video ended, but that wasn't the director's intent and he wasn't trying to manipulate them into believing Jeremy shot up his class. It was supposed to be clear that Jeremy shot himself and trying to defend the interpretation of Jeremy shooting others as "manipulation" is not only flat-out wrong, it is offensive to the real-life tragedy that inspired the song/music video. Some "interpretations" are not interpretations, but "canonical" facts. Aaron's midlife crisis is an example of content that is not up for interpretation, but is a fact that is not intended to be viewed any other way. Once again, not a single "equally powerful reason" has been provided to contest the midlife crisis because it doesn't exist.
In case you haven't realized by now, this is a fictional film set in a fictional world based around fictional characters. Real world "analysis" of mid-life crises has zero bearing on what the film determines to be indicative of a midlife crisis. What is it based upon? The film itself. Aaron is blatantly not lying to Dave when he reveals the midlife crisis, but I'm sure you'll find a way to cast doubt on his claim of recording Dave as he literally records Dave. He's also blatantly not lying to Sara when he admits to being a serial killer. And he's not demonstrating mannerisms to Dave because Dave is dead. Nor is he breaking the fourth wall, even if you think he's speaking directly to you. It's sad that accusing someone of being contradictory doesn't make it true, especially when you're unable to prove it.
Aaron's midlife crisis is not an interpretation because it is actually happening. "Textbook midlife crisis behavioral traits" don't have bearing on a fictional character because fictional characters do not live in the real world. The ones he displays in the film are not faked because they are supported by what occurs in the film, chiefly his different approach.
You attempted to use the last section of the Basic Instinct plot section to demonstrate emotional impact being replicated. My point is the last sentence was added because of its importance to the story, disregarding the emotional impact. If you feel that it replicated the emotional impact of the film, that was incidental.
Uncertainty is still an emotion. You stated from the start that you wanted Aaron's intimacy confession included "because it plays with the audience's understanding that it could be true or false with equal likelihood". You also claimed that "it adds to the dark comedic side of the building of his character, which is essential to the plot", which is further emotional impact. If Aaron's comment had impact on the story, that would be another issue. But it doesn't. Your argument from the start was based around replicating emotional impact, which still isn't allowed.
You wanted different interpretations added "because it reflects on the immediate fate of potential victims that we're supposed to care about" (sympathy) and uncertainty is not the key to the story, whether you like it or not. There are aspects left ambiguous, but they are not important to the story. The only important ambiguous aspect is Sara's fate and that's conveyed by explicitly stating how the film ends. Plot summaries only state what happens in the film. Alternate interpretations go into the themes and analysis section. That's why "shorter stories with complex underbellies" usually don't have longer plots and vice versa. Refer to Avengers: Endgame having about 176 more words in its plot section than Eraserhead, despite Eraserhead being the shorter story with the complex underbelly.
As noted above, "starkly different potential explanations for the plot itself" do not go into the plot section. They go into the themes and analysis section. The "different potential intentions to the lead character" do not impact the overall section. You may call that important, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how film articles are written.
Alas, that is not an individual perspective. That is a stone cold fact you will never refute because you can't. Once again, you fail to provide concrete evidence against it because there is none.
Anyone who actually pays attention during a film knows what's supposed to be doubted and what isn't. But like I mentioned earlier, if you want to cast doubt on Aaron telling Dave that he's secretly recording him or telling Sara that he's a serial killer, feel free to present those theories. Bluerules (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, simply saying "there are shreds to disprove" does not mean there is anything to disprove it and there isn't. well not to a person who is rigidly bent on saying the opposite there isn't. I could be presenting you with an encyclopedia of "shreds" and you'd still be saying the same thing.

Everything you try disproving the midlife crisis with are hypotheticals and theoreticals, but there is nothing concrete because there is none. This fixation on the Coppola lines, which you haven't elaborated on, is you fishing for small pieces of dialogue that are debunked by Aaron's actions. I didn't think I needed to elaborate on it but apparently I was wrong, so here it is: he says something supposedly very meaningful, then seems to have forgotten about it completely a while later. This is classical behaviour in psychopaths and compulsive liars... oh but hang on, I had already said this. Is this not clear enough to you?

No matter what trivial dialogue you focus on, Aaron is explicitly shown changing the approach for his video and the established motivation for this is his midlife crisis. Focusing on "classical behaviour in psychopaths and in compulsive liars" is focusing on further hypotheticals and theoreticals that lack concrete evidence and don't hold up when compared to the concrete evidence of Aaron changing his video. and how do you know he's changing his video approach? How do you know he even gives a toss about what the approach is instead of simply improvising along the way? How do you know that he hadn't planned the apparent "change" beforehand to mess with Sara? You know none of that because I repeat, you're not one of the people, real or fictional, involved in this film. Everything you're saying is just YOUR interpretation of the juxtaposition between his speech and his actions and those two don't even have to be calibrated with one another.

Your whole rant about Saving Private Ryan just tells me that a) you enjoyed the film and bought into its humanistic surface (good for you) and b) you didn't understand my point. I wasn't talking about the surface, about the soldiers' different personalities or about whether they belonged to different units and I definitely won't start a discussion on why the Waffen SS officer's intention was not to comfort Mellish, and why him sparing Upham didn't make him any less sadistic, because that would entail yet another off-tangent discussion and you'd still fail to understand the points I'd make in it. All I was trying to say is that there was a reason why people mistook the two Germans even though they were obviously not identical and the reason stemmed from a calculated manipulation designed to make war look like a binary good-versus-bad confrontation, but if you only grasp at the surface then of you course you won't notice that.

I haven't seen the Jeremy video but you're basically insisting on the mantra that the midlife crisis is factual. You haven't produced a single proof to it other than your dogmatic insistence on it and it's just painful to watch all that solipsistic effort invested in repeating the same thing over and over.

Where do all those "blatantly" come from? Why is it so blatant to you? Are you the kind of person who would buy a second-hand car because the owner says it "blatantly" still hasn't reached 1000 miles?

Aaron's midlife crisis is not an interpretation because it is actually happening. "Textbook midlife crisis behavioral traits" don't have bearing on a fictional character because fictional characters do not live in the real world. Well then every "blatant" evidence you might have of his midlife crisis is based on your perception and that has even LESS bearing on the fictional character.

The ones he displays in the film are not faked because they are supported by what occurs in the film, chiefly his different approach. There comes the change in approach again.

Uncertainty is still an emotion. You stated from the start that you wanted Aaron's intimacy confession included "because it plays with the audience's understanding that it could be true or false with equal likelihood". Uncertainty is still an emotion but it's also an objective reality. If there is uncertainty about Aaron's statements, then there is uncertainty about his offscreen actions and his intentions and that is important because it impacts the plot directly.

You also claimed that "it adds to the dark comedic side of the building of his character, which is essential to the plot", which is further emotional impact. If Aaron's comment had impact on the story, that would be another issue. But it doesn't. Your argument from the start was based around replicating emotional impact, which still isn't allowed. the bit about the dark comedic side I wouldn't have written in hindsight, but everything else I've written later is true and it's been good to read your reasons because it shows light on how fundamentally wrong you were about your edits in the first place.

You wanted different interpretations added "because it reflects on the immediate fate of potential victims that we're supposed to care about" (sympathy) and uncertainty is not the key to the story, whether you like it or not. There are aspects left ambiguous, but they are not important to the story. The only important ambiguous aspect is Sara's fate and that's conveyed by explicitly stating how the film ends. Plot summaries only state what happens in the film. Alternate interpretations go into the themes and analysis section. That's why "shorter stories with complex underbellies" usually don't have longer plots and vice versa. Refer to Avengers: Endgame having about 176 more words in its plot section than Eraserhead, despite Eraserhead being the shorter story with the complex underbelly. That we're supposed to care about, not for. It's not sympathy, it's relevance to the plot. Alternate interpretations go into themes if they do not entail potentially different plotlines altogether. Plus: my edits didn't contain alternate interpretations, they were precisely interpretation-free. Whereas you've obsessively identified the entirety of the film's plot corpus with YOUR own interpretation.

As noted above, "starkly different potential explanations for the plot itself" do not go into the plot section. They go into the themes and analysis section. As noted above, totally agreed which is why the plot should be written in a way that does not attach itself to a single explanation.

The "different potential intentions to the lead character" do not impact the overall section. You may call that important, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how film articles are written. They do not impact the overall section which is why none of them should be taken for granted. This is understood by everyone except by people who think their interpretation is the only explanation for the film's plot.

Alas, that is not an individual perspective. That is a stone cold fact you will never refute because you can't. Once again, you fail to provide concrete evidence against it because there is none. Spoken like a true believer.

Anyone who actually pays attention during a film knows what's supposed to be doubted and what isn't. But like I mentioned earlier, if you want to cast doubt on Aaron telling Dave that he's secretly recording him or telling Sara that he's a serial killer, feel free to present those theories. I have a better idea. Why don't we stop wasting our time here and go straight to Dispute resolution? AnyDosMilVint (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't you haven't presented any evidence, let alone "an encyclopedia of shreds".
I'm not going fishing for a shred of dialogue that you claim supports your point. You either provide the exact dialogue and context or your point doesn't hold up. Not that it's likely to hold up when his actions during the film still demonstrate a different approach - but you still want to cast doubt on him secretly recording Dave, admitting he's a serial killer, and acknowledging his murder of the real Aaron by your logic.
For someone who was previously insisting Dave's importance because he occupies "7 minutes in an 80 minute film", you still don't understand why Dave is in the film. The scene with Dave exists to demonstrate Aaron's midlife crisis, setting up the main storyline. The prologue proves he's changing his approach by providing his motivation for a new approach, brings up information about Aaron that he reiterates (therefore not improvising), and demonstrates why he's changing his approach - not to mess with someone he knows nothing about. So unfortunately, I do know all of this because I actually paid attention and I'm not arguing points for the sake of arguing them. To act like you need to be a fictional character or be involved in the film to know what happens is like saying it's just an "interpretation" that Aaron is a serial killer - despite the blatant evidence proving it. The audience knows what the audience is shown and the audience is shown Aaron's midlife crisis. Therefore, it's not an interpretation, just as Aaron being a serial killer is not an interpretation - it is an established fact. Unfortunately for you, Aaron's actions and speech do align. If the midlife crisis was completely faked, then the prologue wouldn't exist to establish the midlife crisis. It would be pointless if it had no bearing on the story. Or as you put it, "very shoddy editing on their [Brice and Duplass'] behalf".
Your whole rant about Saving Private Ryan was you trying to defend an objectively incorrect interpretation - Steamboat Willie and the Waffen SS soldier being the same character. You didn't understand my point - there was no "calculated manipulation designed to make war look like a binary good-versus-bad confrontation". The soldiers' different personalities and belonging to different units with different uniforms demonstrates this. The manipulation is to challenge the audience's viewpoints and perspectives with scenarios that aren't clear-cut. That's the polar opposite of "the surface" - interpreting the film as "a binary good-versus-bad confrontation" is surface level. And you "won't start a discussion on why the Waffen SS officer's intention was not to comfort Mellish, and why him sparing Upham didn't make him any less sadistic" because you're wrong on both fronts; the film was demonstrating humanity from the other side. But if you don't understand film, then of course you won't realize any of this.
Whether you watched the "Jeremy" music video or not, the point stands that the interpretation of him shooting his classmates is wrong and the video was not trying to manipulate the audience into believing he shot his classmates. Jeremy shooting himself in front of his classmates is as factual as the midlife crisis. The proof of the midlife crisis being real has been demonstrated again and again, but now it looks like you're just outright ignoring it. The proof of the midlife crisis, as even noted above, is the prologue. The entire point of the prologue is to establish midlife crisis. You, on the other hand, haven't produced a single proof to debunk it, with only empty theoreticals and hypotheticals "supporting" your argument. It's just painful to watch all that solipsistic effort invested in repeating the same thing over and over while not providing any evidence to prove what you cannot.
The blatants are blatant to anyone who's actually watched the film and has a functioning brain. It is blatant that Aaron is secretly recording Dave. It is blatant that Aaron is a serial killer. He reveals both of these blatant facts while also revealing the midlife crisis. I was confident that would try to cast doubt on Aaron's blatantly true comments and you didn't disappoint. You must be the kind of person who wouldn't accept blatant lottery winnings because you think they're all scams.
Unfortunately, the blatant evidence actually is blatant and putting blatant in quotation marks won't change that. Also unfortunately, that blatant evidence comes from the film itself, which has all the bearing on a fictional character. To argue against the purpose of the prologue would also be arguing against its inclusion - which would be contradictory for you.
That change in approach is real and very clearly happens in the film. Anyone who paid attention during both films will recognize this.
Uncertainty is still an emotion and content cannot be added to the plot summary on the basis of recreating the film's uncertainty. That's against the guidelines. If the uncertainty directly impacted the plot, then it would be acceptable because it's being included for its plot impact. But it doesn't. Aaron's claims about his first murder and lack of intimacy don't impact the plot - hence the lack of elaboration here.
If you are acknowledging that the edits you wanted included from the onset are fundamentally wrong, then the discussion is finished. The basis for the changes you wanted to make are wrong. The midlife crisis is a different matter because that was included due to its importance to the story.
"That we're supposed to care about" is still sympathy. Carrying about someone is sympathy. It's not relevance to the plot - trying to make the reader care about certain characters is the same emotional impact replication that's not permitted. Whoever the audience cares about does not change the plot. Alternate interpretations go into themes precisely if they do entail potentially different plotlines altogether. That's why they go into a different section; to avoid confusing the reader. And your edits did contain alternate interpretations - once again, "declares himself to be slightly younger--which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film". You may have gone back on this edit, but it is still an alternate interpretation you tried adding to the article. Aaron's midlife crisis, on the other hand, remains interpretation-free. It is present because it actually is relevant to the plot.
If the "explanation" is what actually happens, then the plot section will follow what actually happens.
The actual intentions of the lead character do impact the overall section, which is why they are included. This is understood by everyone except those who do not understand the film's plot.
Spoken like someone who argues just to argue.
You're welcome to take this to a dispute resolution, but just remember that the content you want added goes against the guidelines. Bluerules (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done [1] AnyDosMilVint (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be interesting. Bluerules (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]