Talk:Gummo

Problems with Article

Before we get into an edit dispute, let's discuss this article. Please note on the front page I have nominated the article for deletion.

Second, I believe the section on "Charachters" and on 'Analysis' hold no encyclopedic value. The first section noted has a listing of interesting trivial statements about each characher. I believe this violates WP:TRIV since it holds no actual value. The article will not lose anything from removing this section. Further, the Analysis section simply has the director's explainations about what the meaning of the movie is. I do not believe this is notable nor is it something nessacary. Analysis from the single source of the director, further, is not real analysis. I would perfer any analysis being a movie critic discussing the themes and motifs of the film. Cheers! -- Reubzz (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid case and I agree that it could be better re-written. Though, I don't understand your nomination for the page deletion. Please explain. Endlessmug (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[to Reubzz]: Well what do you want - the article to be deleted or improved? Are you prepared to improve it yourself? There are plenty of Google Books results that you could use. If you don't believe the article should exist you should cease deleting sections from it until a community consensus is reached at AFD. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. I believe the entire article itself should not exist per the AfD nomination page, where my rationale is explained there (per Endlessmug's question). I also make the issue that these sections in particular add to the problems with the article. If the AfD is not result in deletion, I believe it is only prudent to make the article better. I think all 3 of us can reach consensus that the article can be made better, if it is kept. Reubzz (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I came late to this party, and I see the deletion request has been rebuffed, so I don't feel the need to continue the argument against. I'm glad to see that common sense won out here. What I would say in response is that Reubzz's contention that analysis from the film's writer/director is less valuable than that of a film critic is remarkably near-sighted. If the literal creator of this picture isn't qualified to offer analysis of his own work, then no one else on this planet is either. In fact, if I were an average internet user who was curious to know the meaning behind a paradoxical film such as "Gummo," then I would be comforted to know that the only source (if verified properly) I would need to acquire the knowledge for which I was searching is Wikipedia. I do not spend a lot of time reviewing articles on this site. However, the ease of uncovering (hopefully) un-vandalized information here is precisely what intrigues me about the existence of such a resource.Kp.murphy (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-write

I think we all agree the article needs a rewrite. There are too many quotes, the organization is weak, and the summary is too long, etc. I admit to being the source of some of these problems, but writing a good article can be a long process. I think I've put up some valid information and I'll slowly be trying to better form it to make a solid article with less bias, more organization, etc. Feel free to move around material, reword sections, write new sections, but please don't just stamp a notice for deletion.

I propose a solid section on the film's display of poverty & middle america. It's synthesis of pop-imagery and music. Its use of the mentally handicapped and the criticism / rebuttal surrounding. Right now the information is scattered and I think we could better clump it together. Just ideas. Endlessmug (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed your recent contributions to this article and others related to Harmony Korine and it is highly appreciated. Such an influential film as this definitely deserves a proper article. A helpful resource for the structure is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Grading scheme you'll find the requirements for the different quality classes. B-class shouldn't be too hard to reach once the style and structure start to fall into place. ;) I'll try to contribute as well and we'll see how far we can reach. Smetanahue (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks man! It's good to see others are willing to try and fix this article. I'm finding it hard myself to know how to organize, so thanks for the links! Endlessmug (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, FYI, I've been trying to compile a bunch of information on Korine together on this page: take a look Endlessmug (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Smile, you're on TV Burp

The plot summary from this article just used by Harry Hill on ITV1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Why isn't there a category which could include this film and [Freaks]? Edison (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre

I don't know if calling Gummo a "drama film" is exactly correct. It's not really a drama, it's more of a cross between experimental and neo-realism, imho. --Matt723star (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)