Talk:Nightcrawler (film)

Cinematography

I have some, what I believe may be, interesting information, but I'm unsure how to embed it in the article.

In some of the film's scenes, Lou Bloom, the character played by Jake Gyllenhaal, takes upon himself the duties of a cinematographer. Robert Elswit, the film's cinematographer, is Gyllenhaal godfather.

References

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is most likely untrue. See Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal#Robert Elswit. It appears that Gyllenhaal is not a reliable primary source. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Psychopath"

I vote against calling the protagonist a psychopath, or a sociopath, or anything else like that. These are medical terms and shouldn't be used lightly; to say someone (even fictional) is a psychopath is a big claim, and using it flippantly or euphemistically (for someone otherwise unpredictable, violent, manipulative etc) without proper sourcing trivializes psychopathy the disorder.

Lou Bloom isn't diagnosed as a psychopath in the film; we could describe him as violent and manipulative, but not psychopathic. Critics have described him as psychopathic, but that's their interpretation, and they're probably being more flippant than precise, in the same way they might call a character "insane". Popcornduff (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For why Popcornduff started this discussion, see here, here, here and here. That third diff-link concerns Category:Films about psychopaths. Anyway, editors keep adding, in one way or another, that Lou Bloom is a psychopath, and Popcornduff keeps removing the material as unsourced. I keep pointing out that the material is sourced in the Reception section because various critics call Lou Bloom a psychopath or sociopath (note that sociopath redirects to the Psychopath article after debates about whether or not "socioptath" should be a standalone article). In fact, it seems that critics are in general agreement that Lou Bloom is a psychopath/sociopath, and, from what I know of psychopathy, I wouldn't call their assessment incorrect on that. Either way, I don't feel strongly one way or the other on definitively calling Lou Bloom a psychopath or sociopath in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The character's sociopathy is as crucial to his quest as a cowboy's horse or a spaceman's helmet. If he had any empathy, he wouldn't have climbed the ladder and the plot wouldn't have moved. We don't need medical sources to call someone a psychopath, just a reviewer's description. Death is a far more serious medical condition than a mind for business is, and we never need a doctor (real or fictional) to declare a character dead. It's just right there on the screen, for about two hours straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm reviving this discussion since this category has been repeatedly added recently. There is nothing in the article that supports this categorization, and the opinions of film fans that he is "obviously" a psychopath is completely irrelevant. Categories have to be supported by the article content and have to be definitive:

• WP:CATVER – "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
• WP:NON-DEFINING – "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided."

Neither of these thresholds have been met, not even close. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not suitable for inclusion in that category. Popcornduff (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Popcornduff. It is not clear from either the plot or sourced content within the article that the character is a psychopath, and if such content is going to be added to the article it needs to be based on sources more authoritative than those added here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The protagonist easily meets the criteria for both psychopathy & ASPD. It certainly is defining of him - he's extremely ruthless and arrogant. He lies and breaks the law frequently, trespasses into houses, drives dangerously, has no conscience or fear & doesn't care about anyone but himself. He causes his main rival to be severely injured, pressures a woman into sex and has his assistant killed. A person who does not have such a condition would not be able to do as he does. Jim Michael (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Name uniformity in "Plot" section

The main character was referred to as "Bloom" throughout entire article until the last sentence, when he was referred to as "Lou". I changed the "Lou" to "Bloom" to be congruent with the rest of the article. Gil gosseyn (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Think I'll take this; I'm a sucker for neo-noirs and crime thrillers and Nightcrawler happens to be one of my favorites. It appears well-sourced and detailed, so I will complete this review right away. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of nitpicks after a thorough reading:

• I would drop the Cast section entirely and add the cast names in the Plot instead. We are not an indiscriminate provider of information; everything here should be encyclopaedic in nature. Providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed.
• Since composer James Newton Howard is mentioned as one of the key crew members, could you provide context on his involvement in Nightcrawler? If there was one, maybe add it in the post-production/music section.
• It'd be nice to add a photo of director Dan Gilroy in the Development section, and of key actors Gyllenhaal, Ahmed, and Russo in Pre-prod. Supply them with a good caption!
• I'd replace "a hectic process" as it reads too unprofessionally.
• Nightcrawler received highly positive reviews from critics, with many praising Gyllenhaal's performance and Gilroy's script. Source?
• Convert the quotes by Ben Sachs and Richard Roeper into prose. Roeper's comment is unsourced, btw.
• How about adding an Home Media section? See MOS:FILM#Home_media for more info.
• Ref 55 is bare url, and 56 is dead.
• Kindly double-check the prose if it observes proper logical quotation use.

Famous Hobo, I will give you a week to make the fixes, even though I hope such a long time will not be necessary. SLIGHTLY^mad 05:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Not gonna lie, in retrospect, I did nominate this article a bit too early. There are certain aspects of the article that I should have included already (like the home video version). However, I don't have class today, so I'll try and fix those issues, and possibly add more information to the article as a whole. Shouldn't take me more than a couple of hours. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Great! I would also like to add that AllMusic has a coverage of the film's soundtrack, something you would want to be covered in the article as well. Were you able to gather invaluable infos on Howard's scoring process of the film? Personally, that soundtrack is tight. :) SLIGHTLY^mad 16:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Working on that right now. The New York Times has a nice piece on Howard's score, and a few of the interviews I used also have a bit of additional info. As a side note, I just found a great article talking about the marketing for this film, which included a weird LinkedIn profile for Lou Bloom, and a Craigslist ad of all things. I'll try to include that in the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw. I noticed one use of contraction in the Reception, which I already fixed. We must avoid such practice in encyclopedic writing as per MOS:N'T. SLIGHTLY^mad 05:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, added as much as a could to a music section. Turns out there was not as much information as I thought there was. There could be more information in the audio commentary, but I don't have that at my disposal right now. Also, thanks for picking up the slack with contractions and typos I leave behind. I've started editing in the morning while I'm at work, and I'm not a morning person, so I will usually make a decent amount of mistakes. I'm normally able to catch them before I save an edit, but every now and again I miss a mistake. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Music should just be its own section (placed below Production) and be renamed to "Soundtrack" since the track listings have yet to be added in the article. Just don't bother adding the album art in infobox, though, as MoS considers this extraneous. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to have to respectfully disagree with adding the soundtrack track listings. If the soundtrack received attention significant attention from reliable sources (like La La Land (film). I understand that it's a musical, but you get what I'm trying to say) then I would definitely include it. But the Nightcrawler soundtrack didn't get any attention at all, not even from blogs and other unreliable sources. No sources discuss the release date for the album, or that the album even exists, aside from AllMusic. The only reason AllMusic has the tracklisting is because they simply want to catalog the album. They had no further intentions of doing anything else with the album, such as review it. With that said, I believe I have taken care of all of the outstanding issues (or at least addressed them). Sorry it took so long, I really am procrastination incarnate. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

No "Cast" section?

So, I was trying to look up one of the actors on the film's page, and I noticed there's no "Cast" section, like on many other movies' pages? Anyone else noticed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyteSpawn (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

See the GA Review above "I would drop the Cast section entirely". Various editors have gone through phases of thinking this was somehow a good idea, some arguing for and against including the actor names directly in the plot section, others arguing that a tiny table of cast members is good idea, others have shown that a detailed Production and Casting section can also work. There are various different ways that work in theory, but in practice it results in a a mess of inconsistencies, which more than outweighs any supposed benefits.

I'm glad to see the above editor went ahead and restored a simple Cast list after the Plot section. -- 109.76.203.103 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)