Jump to content

Talk:The Substance

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

Makeup Scene in Plot

[edit]

I'm fully on board with the culls to the plot section for brevity, but I wonder if perhaps the scene where Elisabeth succumbs to insecurity while preparing for her date ought to be reincorporated. While I'm aware a noteworthy scene does not a plot point make, so many reviews single it out as the most emotionally visceral part of Moore's performance, that the average Wikipedia reader who hasn't seen the film might read the plot section to have it contextualized. Also, from a plot-relevance angle, it seems significant as the point-of-no-return for the character. I'm imagining something like "Sue's rising fame proves to be a point of jealousy for Elisabeth, who fails to make it to a date after a billboard featuring Sue triggers a spiral of insecurity wherein she spends the evening removing and reapplying her makeup with increasing frustration." (Or something like that. I said I'm on board with the brevity, not that I'm capable of it.) Cybr.punk.hckr.elf (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pictures

[edit]

190.17.42.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 41.141.208.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have both restored the US as a producing country, citing the Cannes page which I have explained credits no American studios. The latter IP explained:

I'm sorry to say this but, this film was originally co-produced by US as well, and it's also filmed in Los Angeles, California, US, and this movie has American hollywood actors, and...it was originally going to produced by Universal Pictures a Hollywood studio, so it doesn't mean it was a FOREIGN MOVIE!

The first claim is unsourced, the second and third are both unrelated to financing, and the third is the same unsourced as the first.

More compellingly, Draco9904 you added the following footnote:

Although Universal Pictures dropped out of being the film's distributor, the film was still produced and financed under the studio and Universal is still credited as a copyright holder in the credits, making it a co-production with the United States.

As another editor already commented in their removal of the content, this is not supported by the linked Deadline source. Presumably, this is original research. However, it sounds more plausible. I thought I would bring the discussion here. Οἶδα (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadline source only stated that Universal and Working Title were making the film in the announcement, which is vague enough to interpret it as Universal being directly involved in producing (or at least financing) the film. I also did notice that Universal was listed as the copyright holder at the end of the credits, despite Mubi being the distributor and the copyright holder listed in marketing material, from a video of a Q&A at TIFF in which the film's credits were still playing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seyGZLvAauk). Still, I'm willing to concede until a verifiable source describes Universal's involvement or lack thereof. Perhaps this can be added as an invisible note. Draco9904 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and good find on the TIFF video! The only source I can find which named Universal alongside the other studios was Cineuropa, which in my experience is a distinctly more reliable source for accurate production details.

The Substance is produced by Working Title (UK) and A Good Story (France) together with Universal Studios, in co-production with French firm Blacksmith. The movie is sold worldwide by The Match Factory.

Οἶδα (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

[edit]

Parallels with 'The Picture of Dorian Grey'? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article from Reactor where an author compares the two, but it's not the strongest source. It might be worth adding under reception/theme if you can find more critics discussing it. Beckbucket (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this - and this 'and one or two others' (at present) are much the same. Possibly something along somewhat woolly lines - 'people have seen resemblances to the Oscar Wilde story...' and get a better reference lager. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are various references making the comparison already - depends upon which are considered 'good' as Wikipedia sources. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources doing this:
  • Stevens, Dana (2024-09-18). "The Substance Lacks Any". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
  • Shone, Tom (2024-09-21). "The Substance — Demi Moore and the dangers of eternal youth". The Times. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
  • Heching, Dan (2024-09-21). "'The Substance': What to know about Demi Moore's powerhouse new film". CNN. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
  • "The Substance review: 'Magnificently tasteless' horror comedy is Demi Moore's 'best big-screen role in decades'". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
  • Ide, Wendy (2024-09-22). "The Substance review – Demi Moore is fearless in visceral feminist body horror". the Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-09-30. and Horton, Adrian (2024-09-28). "Is The Substance brilliant feminist critique or a soulless mess?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
  • "The Substance". WCBE. 2024-09-22. Retrieved 2024-09-30. ภץאคгöร 15:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So 'Comparisons have been made to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey.' with links would be appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but more like "Several critics have noted the film's similarities to Oscar Wilde's 1890 novel The Picture of Dorian Gray." ภץאคгöร 10:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Whatever suits.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Metamodern body horror' vs strictly 'satirical body horror'?

[edit]

I don't know if this is a reach but I feel like calling this 'satirical body horror' is kind of implying it's more 'jokey' (or even black humorist) than it is -- it come across more metamodern (Metamodernism) to me, especially with how it incorporates referential imagery to Kubrick, Carpenter, Cronenberg, Lynch, (and most likely Haneke, but I apparently haven't seen any of his work). Sure, there is somewhat joke-like satirical aspects of the body horror, but that's pretty part-and-parcel for body horror in general. I know satirical isn't exactly a drop-in for 'jokey' but going off the metamodernism defined here: "[metamodernism acts like a] metaphor of a pendulum continually oscillating from the sincere seriousness of modernism to the ironic playfulness of postmodernism" seems to fit the movie better -- it does oscillate from a very serious, grim 'pursuit of beauty comes at a cost' tone to a more playful 'blood-spraying firehose' tone. Ziasquinn (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, secondary sources call it a satire.[1][2][3] So we simply have to use that description. — hako9 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'The Substance' Lets Demi Moore Rip Hollywood a New One". Rolling Stone.
  2. ^ "The Substance review: 'Magnificently tasteless' horror comedy is Demi Moore's 'best big-screen role in decades'". BBC.
  3. ^ "The Substance film review — Demi Moore turns on herself in lurid Hollywood satire". FT.

Justification for including "French Filmmaker" in the notice

[edit]

I don’t understand why the mention of Coralie Fargeat as a 'French filmmaker' was removed. I think it’s important to add this in the opening lines. The Substance was directed and produced by a French team, and mentioning this early helps give context, especially since the film is in English. It will help readers better understand its cultural background. Also since the English article is often the main source for other language versions, adding this detail will help keep things consistent, especially in countries where Fargeat doesn’t have a separate page).

I would appreciate it if the person who regularly removes this mention could explain why...--Portersonnom (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyxaros: @Portersonnom:
(bringing the discussion from the user talk page here).
Probably better overall to include? We'd need a good reason to deviate from the large numbers of sources that mention her as a French filmmaker or director (including the MUBI official podcast). Here are some notes from the friend of mine that is helping collaborate on the article (edited for clarity):

Including "French filmmaker" in Coralie Fargeat’s introduction is supported by reliable sources, as both Vulture and The Film Stage, RogerEbert.com and Vogue use this term to describe her background. The Vulture, authored by Fargeat, refers to her as a “French director,” for “Revenge” while The Film Stage, RogerEbert.com and Vogue identify her as a “French filmmaker” in the context of her work on The Substance. She is also described as a “French Writer-Director” on the official Mubi Podcast.

Sources:

Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read that discussion, you would realize that it is not about not having sources or "what if she is not French?". As I wrote there, any person's background and perspective can and will shape their work, and it's certainly not something that can be expressed by just stating the person's nationality. Mentioning one person's nationality with a word in the lead provides no (cultural) context or "unique perspective" for a film article. By saying "Fargeat is French", we cannot expect readers who only read the lead section to immediately learn how being French influences her work, how she is "critical of American and Hollywood culture" and how it's "not" an American film (although it's an American co-production). Production section actually contains substantial info, and this cannot be summarized by simply stating that the director is French. I think it is much more useful to use our time to make constructive edits. ภץאคгöร 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I don't feel strongly either way; my point is your POV essentially constitutes a deviation from reliable sources which refer to her as a French director. It doesn't have anything to do with providing (cultural) context which I agree it does, at best, insufficiently. While I do express a light agreement with Portersonnom, I would want to look into similar articles to see what the general style is here (e.g., RoboCop doesn't mention that Verhoeven is Dutch). I don't think a broader discussion is needed here. It's really not a big deal either way as this info is covered in the rest of the article (lead is a bit scant anyway and should probably be expanded at some point). Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a "deviation"? How is not mentioning a person's nationality in the lead section a deviation from sources and a POV problem? I've referred to her as French. Please read carefully what I wrote above. You seem to have written a reply without reading it. If you agree with Portersonnom, then you agree with what Portersonnom wrote above and in the other discussion (their problem was not whether the person in question was French or not, or lack of sources), which I have already pointed out is wrong. ภץאคгöร 12:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short film Reality+

[edit]

I don’t know if this could be mentioned in the Conception section, but in 2014 Coralie Fargeat released a short film titled Reality+, which has similar themes and a premise to The Substance, so it looks like it was at least an inspiration for this film. Spectrallights (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems important indeed. Strangely this doesn't appear mentioned in any of the articles/interviews. I wonder if we can get away with adding a sentence or so about the previous short film. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of articles that talk about it.
https://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3832996/reality-the-substance-director-already-made-the-perfect-body-horror-companion-piece/
https://blog.vive.com/us/from-reality-to-the-substance-how-appearance-anxiety-evolves-in-mixed-reality-and-body-horror/ Spectrallights (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now added in this edit. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people only in deleted scenes in the cast?

[edit]

The scenes with Craig Silver and Bob Haswell weren't in the released version of the movie so is it accurate to say that Balderrama and Géczy are in the cast? There's a reason they're not listed in the film credits. Umimmak (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they should probably not be mentioned. I was working off of MUBI, didn't realize those didn't appear in the film. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source for box office (close to $70 million)

[edit]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oscars-state-of-race-contenders-screened-best-picture-actor-director-1236069055/?taid=674296d577dbbf00014b433a&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huey pham 04 (talk · contribs), Dhoffryn (talk · contribs), DeanSal1 (talk · contribs): Regarding the box office disagreement and deadline source, it might be better to resolve the disagreement here on the talk page? We also have the option to request WP:3O. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Numbers page have it at $47 million while Box Office Mojo has it at $55 million so already there is a big difference. I can't remember the source of some other page but basically some markets are not entirely covered in Box Office Mojo (like Brazil). Deadline points out how the movie has overperformed in Latin America so the gross is higher. So with all of that I would have rather used some other sourcing. Dhoffryn (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm inclined to agree with the Deadline article here. It may not be that BoxOfficeMojo is unreliable, just that it's not a complete accounting (or hasn't been updated as recently). Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revisited some pages, I remember how Deadline put movie Boy and the heron at $294 million while Box Office Mojo still has it at $172 million. However The Numbers have it at $292 million (they have maybe updated it with time, don't recall the number back then). Movie did a really big number in China where it grossed $73 million in a 5-day opening (overall it did at least over $100 million). Maoyan Research Institute did give out some numbers for top grossing Asian movies in China but overall some numbers could be tougher to get (probably).
Here all I am seeing at BOM - Colombia and Mexico numbers. So it's not a stretch that movie is going after $70 million. And this Hollywood reporter link that you have posted says it so too.
Like you said BOM is reliable but maybe not entirely complete. So that's why I have more graviated towards Deadline. I don't how much other user still feels strongly using those lower figures tho. Dhoffryn (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for my exaggerated comments in my edit. I was not involved the previous back and forth edits, but I kept a watch of it. So, when I saw generally reliable, even if contested in this case, sources getting removed because they did not fit with the desired edit, red flags flew up in my brain. Maybe I overreacted.
Nevertheless, I still think that Deadline must be getting their numbers from insider quotes - even if they do not explicitly say so - and industry insiders have an intrinsic motivation to puff up their numbers to make their movie seem successful. However, I do not object if we put a range of numbers ($5X to $6X Million) in the box office box, and if the body of the text says "at least 5X million" or "up to 6X million." If other editors make that change, I will not edit it back. Huey pham 04 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Box Office Mojo has a track record of failing to update the international part of the box office gross, in most cases they do get around to it eventually. (They also post early weekend estimates as if they were actually the final counted grosses, which is why occasionally on a Monday-Tuesday you will see nice even numbers replaced with more exact and messy figures and occasionally the box office gross will drop a little bit.) Sometimes The-Numbers is more up-to-date and sometimes Box Office Mojo is, but this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper so there is no need to rush to update and it is best to wait, the figures usually settle out to the same numbers (or very close) when the theatrical run finishes. If you cannot be patient enough to wait until the film finishes I would still urge you to at least wait until Tuesday/Wednesday when the figures from the preceding weekend are normally settled. A few million here or there isn't that important, the film has made 3x multiples of its budget and is clearly a success. -- 109.78.196.173 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source for "satirical"

[edit]

https://mubi.com/en/substance

Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section organization

[edit]

@Youknowmyname657: regarding this diff - I'm guessing you meant to indent the subsections also? It doesn't look correct right now.

Personally I think it makes sense for prosthetics and makeup (possibly renamed as, e.g. "Design") to be its own top-level section. It is an important aspect of the film on its own, and a similar structure is adopted on other comparable articles, see The Thing (1982 film)#Design and RoboCop#Special effects and design.

I will take a stab at making it more clear but if you disagree feel free to make a different change and I'll let whatever structure you prefer stand. Or others can chime in here. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Substance&oldid=1262776575"