Talk:Call Me by Your Name (film)

	Call Me by Your Name (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 2, 2018 Good article nominee Listed November 13, 2018 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 12, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Luca Guadagnino, who directed the romantic drama film Call Me by Your Name, was first hired as a location consultant for the film?
Current status: Good article

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Film: French / Italian / American This article is supported by the French cinema task force. This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Brandt Luke Zorn on 25 October 2018. This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist on 1 November 2018.

	LGBT studies
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Romance Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

	Wiki Loves Pride
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

This was the 11th most viewed article on Wikipedia for the week of March 4 to 10, 2018, according to the Top 25 Report.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

4 nominations (including BAFTA Award for Best Film). M.Karelin (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plot exceeds the recommended length of plots, it contains inconsistent terminology, it contains POV, it contains detail that is necessary as we know it takes place over a summer therefore when something happens we already know takes place from some unknown time at the beginning of the summer to some point conclusion. To say something takes place over several days is redundant. Is it really necessary to be a plot spoiler? At least leave something to the actual viewers experience.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is true. Please read

WP:FILM PLOT. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You are telling me that it does not include POV? Speculation? You are telling me that it does not use consistent terminology? You are telling me that what is expressed can be done so without having to include quotes and exactly what happened on each day? Again, a plot is a summary not ex excuse not to see the film. I realise that this film is new and that you may have a romantic attachment as to how it may be expressed but that is beside the point. Why with two what can be made with one?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As our guidelines state, "Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers and without using disclaimers or spoiler warnings in the article.". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your intention to reimpose inacurracies and assumptions based on something that has nothing to do with the inaccuracies and assumptions? I realise you belief that there is nothing wrong with the plot that was previously in place but even the litte editying that has been done so far draw to the fact that it can be improved despite trying to throw in WP policies, guidelines for matters it does not concern. The wrong terminology has nothing to do with the spoiler. Yet you believe by defending it that repeating the same fact is perfectly acceptable. You believ that it is perfectly acceptable to imply what it is that the actors are experiencing although it is never at times disclosed directly with references that these emotions etc are being experienced. Yes, it is to be expected that these emotions are to be experienced but if the film does not say it and we then go on to say that that is what it is then that is speculating. Ah=gain, I understand that you do not understand this. That is a usual response to intransigence. I truly believe that because of the newness of this film and what people may attach to how they believe it should be expressed that seeing the trees from the forest is not possible. It happens with many of these plots. But then in the long run a considerable amount of what was thought significant turns out to be otherwise. Sorry to burst your bubble if that is the case but the short history of WP proves this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current text: "Elio, an introspective bibliophile and musical prodigy, finds little in common with Oliver, whose carefree and exuberant personality contrasts with his own. Elio also resents vacating his bedroom for the duration of Oliver's stay."

Replacement text: "Elio is an introspective bibliophile and musical prodigy who finds little in common with Oliver's carefree and exuberant personality. Elio resents giving up his bedroom to Oliver during his stay.

Why: if you say he finds little in common with Oliver then you do not need to say that his personality is a contrast because why would it not if it is not common between them at the start or appealing to Elio? Is it necessary to say he "also" resent the bedroom situation. It is common for people to be upset about not keeping their bedroom when there are visitors.2605:E000:9143:7000:8C6F:E557:E6EA:C6DA (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the Adaptation section states that the filmmakers "chose to set the movie entirely in the present time". On the surface, this seems to contradict what is stated two sentences later: "[Guadagnino] decided to push up the original setting from 1987 to 1983". Does anybody have an idea as to how the earlier sentence could be reworked to avoid the apparent contradiction? 24.202.254.151 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely 1983. They danced to Love My Way (song) for Christ's sakes.Ernio48 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. The present, in terms of this film, is 2017. At worse, if you consider the novel's present instead, you get 2007. So the sentence that says the movie is set in the present time would imply that it is set in 2007 or 2017, which is then contradicted by the (correct) assertion about the 1983 setting. 24.202.254.151 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions? Damian Vo (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why his opinion matters of all people and why his trolling should be considered a legitimate critique for this film. It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Woods opinions SHOULD be on the page. He is not some random dude, he has been a critic for two highly respected publications, The Guardian and The New Republic, neither of which is some right wing, evangelical publication. It undercuts Wikipedia's credibility to censor and sanitize articles, especially on controversial topics.Scottca075 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a factual inaccuracy in the Soundtrack section that stated this was Sufjan's first contribution to a feature film soundtrack. I mention my edit here only because the deleted statement had a proper citation (to a Spin magazine news article). The magazine is, however, mistaken. He previously scored the soundtrack to a feature film documentary, Beyond This Place. Citation:

I'm currently copy-editing the article, and I noticed some variance in the date formatting, which was mostly dmy. Upon investigation I've found the original variety is mdy; see this diff, and retained this format until Feb 2018 diff, when it was changed without discussion or explanation here. For some reason the article creator set the template to dmy but used mdy. Because of this, I'm boldly changing the in-text format to mdy as I proceed; it'll take a few days so please excuse the mixed formatting in the meantime. I'm pinging @Dl2000: to this page to explain; if there's a good reason for the change I'll happily change it back. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While James Wood's criticism of the age difference within the relationship depicted by the film comes primarily from a place of trolling and homophobia, the age difference within the film has been a point of contention, most recently by Karamo Brown. Slate also published a good piece on it here. I think a short sub-section on the discussion/controversy within the Reception is warranted. CLPond (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. It was something I "noticed" when I watched the film, though I wasn't sure whether it had particularly attracted any attention. DonIago (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A paragraph or two on the subject is warranted, based on the level of secondary source commentary. It's a sensitive and controversial issue, but there has been very thoughtful commentary and a diversity of perspectives. Also, Armie Hammer responded in the press; have others involved in the production have been asked about it, too? The Slate article is a good starting point, and it also ties back to how the subject was portrayed in the book. Some additional sources:

talk 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

There needs to be a Controversy section for this article. To pretend that the topic wasn't controversial undercuts the credibility of Wikipedia. The criticism didn't just come from one source, or even one side of the spectrum. Queer Eye star Karamo Brown said the film 'glorifies predatory behavior'. Boston Globe writer Cheyenne Montgomery was even more explicit. Add in the comments of The Guardian critic James Woods' comments and you do have a controversy that needs to be included in the article. Would this film even have been released in the post #metoo world of Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, et all world? Scottca075 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]