Talk:Spring Breakers

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

Edit request on 5 August 2012

"want to wants" 72.177.6.195 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SBaker43 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 August 2012

'want to go on a adventure.' should be 'want to go on an adventure." 76.3.195.8 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 August 2012

Therefor should be spelled Therefore 76.3.195.8 (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I don't know who wrote it but the spelling wasn't too good. Thanks!

FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't forget Skrillex!

EDM boy king Skrillex is scoring for the film! I came here to learn more about it, but you guys don't even mention him. Let's get his name in there somewhere! :) http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/skrillex-to-score-harmony-korines-spring-breakers-20120702 JBAnonymous (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates for the Spring Breakers page

http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2012/springbreakers There's a new synopsis for the movie. There's also the first clip of the movie http://vimeo.com/48406777. & a site for the movie http://www.springbreakersfilm.com

SpringBreakers1 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Please add the line below to the "Cast" section or the "Production" section.

A character played by [[James Franco]] is based on a rapper [[Riff Raff (rapper)|Riff Raff]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vibe.com/article/james-franco-play-riff-raff-upcoming-harmony-korine-film|title=James Franco to Play Riff Raff in Upcoming Harmony Korine Film|publisher=[[Vibe (magazine)|Vibe]]|first=Stephanie|last=Long|date=March 28, 2012}}</ref>

122.26.219.232 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The article is no longer protected. Feel free to edit it yourself. Thank you. Begoon talk 03:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Release Date

Is the release date of March 5, 2013 correct? I've seen it on a few other sites as well, but it seems strange that this movie would be coming out on a Tuesday. Is that the reason it still hasn't been added to the 2013 in film article? Also, does anyone know if this movie is going to be in wide release or limited release? Alphius (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article says March 8, 2013. That would make more sense, but I can't find any sources for it. However, I did see one source that said March 6, 2013. Alphius (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I have removed the "comedy-drama" genre from the first sentance because there really is no real comedy in the film. Sure, some parts may provoke laughter, but you wouldn't call Argo a comedy-drama, and it was more intentionally funny than this.—24.231.72.57 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No way -- this is definitely a "comedy-drama", James Franco's character is clearly comedic, the Britney Spears scene? Was that supposedly to be super serious?--The lorax (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Britney Spears scene was hardly comedic, it may have started off funny, but it got more violent and disturbing as it went on. Franco's character is only really comedic in certain parts. One character or scene does not define a whole movie, the movie was generally dark, tense, and bleak. -24.231.72.57 (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it's not up to us to decide on genres. I've added citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a black comedy. This should be mentioned in the first sentence. I can provide several citations if required. Film Fan (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far we have 5 that just call it a comedy. If you can find more than that go for it. Otherwise, I'd say you shouldn't per
WP:UNDUE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I clicked on two of the sources you cited by random and both referred to it as a drama and a comedy. You clearly ignored this fact, when you added them to prove your
message me! 14:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I never denied that they say drama so don't pretend you are reading my mind with anything. All of them also say comedy which seems to be the primary genre it's referred to as. If you want to add drama to the categories, I won't stop you, but the general consensus seems to be comedy. If i'm wrong, find more sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] that cite the movie as a
message me! 21:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
sorry, didn't see this response.
  • Rotten Tomatoes is not clear and categories for "Action/Adventure" as well added. which is? action or adventure? Rotten Tomatoes is more focused on aggetating reviews then giving a user an idea what a film is about, and there's no author to point out who added this or what they take into consideration when choosing it.
  • IGN's source is just for promoting the trailer. They haven't seen the film at the time of that posting, so how would they know the genre?
  • UPI doesn't really state whether they have seen the film yet. As it's about the promotion about the premiere and on Gomez's comment, it's not clear what they have or haven't seen.
  • The MovieBox link also is just about the trailer, suggesting they haven't seen the film.
  • Metro is acceptable for thriller.
  • Contactmusic is giving a genre to a film they haven't seen, so it's not appropriate.
  • Hollywood Reporter says comedy as well as the other genres mentioned (comedy, crime, drama).
  • New Yorker is fine for crime drama.
  • BreitBart says "drama" but maybe i'm stretching it, sometimes people say drama just referring to the story of the film, which he may be doing here.
  • Box Office Mojo says "Crime Drama" but I wish it had an author to put it up. Who's writing it? there's no article, no database information of how this found, not even a plot summary. Not 100% sure about this one.

In total, that gives us 1 for thriller, 1 extra for comedy (making 6), 1 for crime, 2 for crime drama and some sort-of okay sources for other genres and the others are for sources. So having 1 and 2 is not really comparable to the three I have. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided more than enough sources which took me a whole five minutes and a google search to find. This film is clearly not just a comedy, which I have yet to see your RELIABLE SOURCES for citing as just a comedy. Have you seen the movie? Then your opinion would mean less than the sources that show just the trailer. The movie has also been out for a year now, so the sources that show the trailers are reliable as they could have seen the full movie by then due to it being released at film festivals. You clearly have a
message me! 03:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have seen the movie but my own personal opinion is not welcome here. There's no proof that they've seen the film at film festival so we can just assume they have as I doubt these people at film festivals have seen these. I'm not trying to prove any point and I'd prefer you didn't just flash random wiki rules that don't apply to the situation. If I calculated my reviews wrong, I apologize, but I only included the bolded titles, not the ones which I felt were not specific. And just because people edit the genre a lot, doesn't really mean much as one of the most common things I find people change in articles is adding genres to album and film articles. My reliable sources for comedy are at the end of the sentence in the lead (where they should be). Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Doubt these people at film festivals have seen these", That made zero sense. You do not know if they have seen the film or not so they should all count either way. Either way you are just throwing opinions around, and yes I am flashing wiki rules that clearly apply to the way you are editing here. They are specific enough you are just turning a blind eye to the clearly reliable sources I have provided.
  • [13]: Comedy and Drama
  • [14]: Says nothing about any genre.
  • AllMove: The one source that just says comedy.
  • [15]: Again does not mention a genre.
  • [16]: Also does not mention any genre.
I am going to assume good faith, but you seem to have no reliable sources except AllMovie backing up your genre opinion.
message me! 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, about that. I read that while being a bit distracted. What i'm trying to say is there's no proof these people have seen the film as there's no mention that they have or not. So we can't take it as a source (yes, it's been shown at a film festival, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that every cite you mentioned saw it a film festival premiere. I'm going with reasoning and I'm questioning the validity of the source. I think you'd agree we should use sources where it's more certain that the article author has seen the film. I'm not just jumping to genre. I saw it was uncited, and I did some research to find things. We can't just shove every genre we find into the lead anyways as it would be a mess. Shouldn't use Indiewire as it's about the casting of a film that hasn't been released yet. I think that one was a citation for casting in the lead rather than something I added. I don't recall (check the history?) Allmovie of course says comedy. Time Out USA says "most irresponsible comedy mainstream Hollywood will never make.". That's important and says quite a bit about the genre of the film. In the Roeper review it says "Written and directed by Harmony Korine. Comedy". The majority of things I've found are still saying comedy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what happened to, "I have five sources that say comedy..." when you just proved to yourself there is only three. A majority of the reliable sources have cited it as a drama which is exponential clear. I would be open to listing it as a "
message me! 17:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought I had five, sorry, I added those citations a long time ago and moved them to the end of the sentence. I apologize. If you want, we can make the lead "...is a comedy and drama film..." etc. and add those citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whups. missed the second half of your post. Since most critics did seperate comedy and drama, I don't think we should make it a hybrid to be specific. I'm glad we came to a conclusion though. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times calls it an "Action, Crime, Drama", The Washington Post has it under "Action/Adventure", The Guardian says "Comedy, Drama, Crime", while the producers designate it as a drama. Added to the already cited sources, I think there is enough inconsistency across different reliable sources as to conclude there is no consensus. I recommend removing references to genre, I've seen plenty of film articles that do this. An alternative would be to create a section that makes the point of the wide disparity in genre designation. Avoiding mention and cataloging of genre, will leave it up to each reader to conclude what it is, based on the plot description. And it's far simpler. — Santiago Mendez (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally comfortable with removing references to the genre, but I think we should have some sort of explanation about the style of the film in the article. I find these kind of blippy bullet point genres on some news articles don't really hold a lot of weight, and that a thing like discussing how the style of the movie is much more appropriate. My only issues is than we get a dozen random IPs randomly adding in genre frivolously. I tried creating a "style" section for an article on Drug War, which helped a bit. Any other thoughts anyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As another viewer of the film, I see it as a crime dramedy. It's funny at some points, it's serious on others. I know my view is particularly relevant to the Wiki page's genres, but it's just how I see it.
talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we can't use
subjective things like genre. So we need sources and have to come up to some general agreement based on research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Listing five genres is pointless and absurdist. Best to let the reader decide based upon description of plot. Plenty of other film articles have done this to avoid needless genre edit-warring and overall confusion in lede sentences. As such, I removed the genres from the lede. Icarus of old (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism Controversy around Spring Breakers

After its appearance, the movie triggered a debate in the blogsphere and among critics regarding the role of its women characters. Summarising, some claim the film is sexist by objectifying their bodies, while others claim that, for once, women are not victims but empowered heroines. On September I tried to write about such debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spring_Breakers&diff=571853194&oldid=571818908

but Thargor considered the sources were not reliable enough. I was referencing a few blog posts to show that there were plenty of bloggers for and against. I could search for more reliable or important sources about the issue (e.g. The Guardian or Rolling Stone), as the film is shown still now as a source of debate. Would that be ok, adding such sources? Or does anyone have any other advises for it to be noteworthy enough to be kept?--

talk) 10:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no issue using either of those latter sources. My issue was more with using the self-published blog, and you've solved it. 12:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, done--
talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I removed the self-published blogs again per this conversation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how this section was written. Some words seem out of place and the quote from Rolling Stone appears awkwardly; it doesn't flow like it should. --Matt723star (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted section about Spring Breakers sequel

I've deleted the section about the alleged Spring Breakers sequel. The first time because it was submitted by a sockpuppet of a community banned vandal, KuhnstylePro. There is no requirement to be discriminating when reverting banned users' contributions, so that deletion was absolutely legitimate. I deleted it a second time after it was re-submitted by brand-new user SpringBreakersNo1, because the content attempts to assert as fact something that is only hinted at in the source. "James Franco Hints At 'Spring Breakers' Sequel: Is It Possible?" This is not an official announcement, and Wikipedia is not a breaking news site, or a gossip mill. When the project has been confirmed by a

reliable source it can be included again. Disagree? Voice your thoughts here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, well that 'splains it. SpringBreakersNo1 was another sock. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this movie was a joke?

Just wondering. Because the description here through me for a loop after seeing the poster and reading the synopsis. yonnie (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather

Should she even be listed in the cast section? 'cause I don't even remember ever actually seeing this character. Scream4man (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the credits so gets listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's in the film but the casting section here is only supposed to list notable characters and she wasn't even clearly seen. Scream4man (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we are changing the cast order to list Vanessa before Selena then shouldn't we put Ashley there, too? Scream4man (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Olyphant

An editor has repeatedly added Timothy Olyphant to the cast list, but after checking several databases I can find no evidence of him appearing in this film. This looks like a factual error, and despite my request for a source the editor has simply reverted me. I am going to this actor once again and I do not expect the name to be restored without a source. Betty Logan (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year

It was first shown in 2012, so why is it classed as a 2013 film? Jim Michael (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael presumably because that's when it went into wide release, and that's what sources like AFI consider it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many films, including this one, were shown at a film festival during the year before they were released to the public. Other film articles use the year it was first shown. Jim Michael (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. BBFC considers it a 2012 film, but Rotten Tomatoes considers it a 2013 film. I'm sure none of that helps, so maybe someone at
WT:FILM can figure out it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spring_Breakers&oldid=1210343920"