Talk:Eyes Wide Shut

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Stanley Kubrick's death

Stanley Kubrick's death has to mentioned in this movie page because there are a lot of clues about a secret group that wanted him dead before the Eyes Wide Shut release =) Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the clandestine cabal wanted him dead before the release, then why didn't they kill him... before the release? Why didn't they kill him before the film was anywhere near completion? Why didn't they see to it that the film never felt the pure illumination of a xenon projection lamp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.148.214 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film Ends - Daughter handing over to the satanic sect

The film finally ends with a scene in the store where Alice says that one has to "fuck" now.

I ask for completion of the article at the end of the film:

In the department store scene you can see at the end 2 older men who were also at the party to the beginning of the film. These two older men take the daughter with them. Father and mother are unconcerned and let this happen, even handed over by facial expression, gestures and lead with the hands of the daughter to these 2 older men. It can be assumed that father and mother are now also in this satanic sex and murder sect and even sacrifice (child sex, rituals) their own daughter for it. We can interpret the whole movie in such a way as to show how such a powerful evil circle, new perpetrators and victims are fed.

We can interpret the whole film in a way that shows how such a powerful and satanic circle, new offenders and victims are fed. The film shows how such a satanic sect works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:7F18:405B:6453:226E:5BCA (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can interpret it that way but that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH]] and does not belong in the article. It could go in your blog or facebook page though. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Is "dream-logic" really a genre? The link goes to Oneiric (film theory), which specifically states that it applies to film analysis and it is not a genre in itself. I think the genre should be "erotic drama" or maybe "psychological erotic drama" or something along those lines. "Dream-logic" doesn't really count as a genre because it's more related to the style of the film than it is the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whovian99 (talk • contribs) 06:30, December 16, 2018 (UTC)

No, it should not be included as a genre classification. Perhaps it can be used elsewhere in the article body with reliable sourcing, but not in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously written

This article may be the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to have been written by a fan obsessed with the film who enjoys discussing the intricacies of every detail of the film. Encyclopedia articles should be concise and to the point. Much of what is included in this article should be left to the clubs of movie buffs. I encourage other editors to join me in removing the unnecessary and obsessive details of every element regarding this film. MarydaleEd (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to partially remedy it but it still needs a lot of work, particularly since the film it's about deserves better quality. That being said, I've seen worse. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick’s Dark Rainbow (?)

Book is not a source of reference used for the Wikipedia article. In my opinion, the book is only noted as ‘further reading’ as advertising for a self-published product. Amazon reviews written in a very close timespan that are very similar in writing style and tone. I’ve read every and anything Kubrick-related that my library (and inter-library loans) can access and have never seen or read mention of the author anywhere. Marketing over merit. WJPK (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]