Talk:Boyhood (2014 film)

Documenary?

Will this be a documentary? Or will it just be the same actor, just growing up? → C Teng ^[talk] 21:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a fictional film about a fictional characters played by actors and focuses on the boy (the same actor) growing up. But in short, its just another drama (possible coming of age film) about a child except this time they don't replace the actor Charlr6 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Bear

As far as I can see, "Boyhood" didn't win the Golden Bear of the Berlin International Film Festival 2014, but the Silver Bear for Best Director. Since I am new here, I won't change this immediately, but will leave it to the senior wikipedians. 2A02:908:DF50:A4E0:61EA:B91E:4047:8494 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot too short and references at the end of the plot section aren't very useful

The plot section of the article is very short and could well be extended (by someone who saw the movie). As it reads it's more like a little ad and doesn't explain what the boy really encounters. Also the two references at the end of the plot section are silly, they are articles written before the movie was finished and do not tell much about the plot. I would improve this section but I feel not confident enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.223.2 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential mistake in plot: we were under the impression that the chocolate they ate in the end was mushrooms 76.170.114.251 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The mushrooms bit was removed (by me) ages ago. Popcornduff (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the previous comment. When watching the film, i was also under the impression that it was a mushroom he was given/ate. Why was this removed? Was it found out to not be correct? 205.143.205.150 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That scene's dialogue -- "The timing's perfect, it'll KICK IN just as we get to the top of the park" -- strongly suggests beyond-cannabis psychedelics to me. Sskoog (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed it from mushrooms to just "drugs". Someone else changed it to pot brownie later, which matches my memory of the scene. I could be wrong; I'd have to watch it again. (But there was a poster for magic mushrooms in the same room, so maybe that influenced your interpretation?) Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a pot brownie, I paid good attention to the scene for this reason haha. STATic message me! 06:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks just like an ambiguous chocolate, mushrooms can be put in chocolates and it's definitely suggested from the sort of dialogue going on in Big Bend, especially from the roommate yelling and all, that they're on psychedelics of some kind. What's best is just to put "drugs" for the time being since it's not made totally clear, but you can't tell what drug it is just from the few frames that we see the substance and they never specify. I do think everyone will agree it's very important to the plot that it ends with him taking a drug, though, so it should be included somehow.

It says Mason "meets his new roommate Dalton, his girlfriend, Barb, who gives him a mushroom chocolate, and her roommate, Nicole." Is this sentence correct? It suggests that Barb gives him her roommate, Nicole. Perhaps the sentence is meant to indicate that he meets Dalton, Barb, and Nicole; and that Barb gives him the chocolate. It should be clarified, but since I haven't seen the film I am not the one to do so. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Epic" movie?

I'm a bit concerned about the description of Boyhood as an epic drama film. Does it really follow any of the characteristics set forth by the epic film genre? The fact that it was filmed over twelve years, in my opinion, doesn't really make it epic. Additionally, the film's screenplay has a primary focus on common day human dialogues and the everyday of a growing child. Does it really count as an "epic" film? I'm not there. Message me! 04:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. An "epic" is about the fate of a nation or a people.173.73.123.146 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot

I was about to cut it down but decided to come on here first and discuss.

Firstly, the plot is too long, and needs cutting down and has a lot of unimportant information, and is also written more like a story than the usual film plots. Would anyone be willing to cut it down, or the original editor who wrote it? Because it is over-long, and over the Wiki standard length for a plot for a film. If not, I will cut it down.Charlr6 (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I endorse cutting it down. Per WP:FILMPLOT, it should be between 400 and 700 words. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reducing it would be an interesting idea, because it is indeed very long, and follows a weird formatting, divided into a lot of paragraphs. I'm not there. Message me! 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've cut some of it down. It still needs more work done and tidying up. Charlr6 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've cut the plot down to 778 characters, from what was 1435. Charlr6 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had to cut down the plot once again as it went almost over 100 words since I edited it last. I've cut it down again and it is 826 words. Feel free to cut down only, not add any more because per WP:FILMPLOT, it should be between 400 and 700 words Charlr6 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to start a new section or add it to this one. I'm watching it on Netflix now and it says by 2009, he's tried pot and alcohol, but in the scene where he comes home after smoking, he turns 15. The math on this is really off and I guess, subsequently - the entire article on the plot of the movie. Not sure what to put in as I've been confused on the math myself sometimes without knowing the full details of his life. 72.229.154.246 (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Cast?

Is there a reason that only the 4 main characters are on here? Can we put the supporting cast members on there too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussobrennon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can, such as characters already mentioned in the plot but not in cast list. Charlr6 (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Why was my edit removed by Pwh246? The only explanation I received was "Removal of the mention of completely unknown reviewers (opportunistic?)". They are not completely unknown, and it is not opportunistic, as I'm not associated with them. In fact, I personally don't recognize many of the names of the other reviewers, yet my edit was removed. Mike Stoklasa created the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars reviews, which were featured in several articles: http://redlettermedia.com/links/

Just because user Pwh246 hasn't heard of them doesn't mean that their opinions are invalid or that they don't "deserve" to be included in an online encyclopedia.Fishfude (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how reviewers who gained notoriety for an extraordinarily small number of reviews (specifically for the Star Wars franchise) qualify as legitimate film critics, but go ahead and keep the statement if you like. I much prefer the dissent of the LA Times and IndieWIRE critics, who were infinitely more tactful and eloquent. And no, the opinions of the guys from Red Letter Media are not invalid. This is something I neither stated, nor implied. I would, however, urge you to look at the A-Z movie reviews listed on the Red Letter Media site. Their oeuvre is hardly as prodigious as most film critics, including those like Kenneth Turan, the critic mentioned in the same paragraph. Again, the opinions of the Red Letter Media guys are not invalid, but they do review an awfully small number of films, which make them seem inexperienced as critics. Pwh246 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I do agree their inclusion does make me raise an eyebrow. They're not exactly well-known, heavyweight critics, and their reviews are arguably more comedy/entertainment pieces than actual reviews. I'm not sure including them alongside big hitters makes sense. Popcornduff (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Third divorce

The article says: "Jim, who has been drinking heavily, confronts Mason about his late hours. Olivia later divorces Jim."

I don't remember that it was explicitly shown that he divorced him, though I may have missed it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely not explicitly shown - I think you just figure it out later on, but I can't remember what gives it a way. Might not be worth mentioning. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Backup plan?

I think I read somewhere that the filmmakers had several alternate plans for the plot, in case the actors' circumstances or willingness to participate changed along the way. From an investment point of view, this would be a prudent strategy, and one could envision equivalent storylines for Girlhood, Motherhood, etc. being developed and using much of the same raw material. Can anyone locate some reliable source for this topic? jxm (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Finally found a ref that briefly mentions this item, which I've just included. jxm (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the "See also" section

Boyhood is a single film that shows characters over twelve years of their lives using the same actors at these different ages by filming them over many years. Hoop Dreams is a documentary film filmed over only four years, but is similar enough to seem to me to clearly be worth putting in a "See also" section. But several of the items listed are series of separate films where the same actor plays the same character at different stages of life. If this is all it takes to include something in the "See also" section, then why not the Harry Potter films (eight films that cover ages 11 to 17 for Harry and other kids)? Why not the three Bad News Bears movies from the 1970s? Why not a TV Show like The Wonder Years (a show about a boy growing up over five years and with the same child actors in the same roles over those years)? In fact, any film sequel with child actors playing the same role or any TV series that lasts several years about child characters qualifies just as well as the Truffault films, the Golzow films, the Up series, the Douglas trilogy, and the Apu trilogy. Since those are all series and not works that show the aging process in a single work, I recommend they all be removed while leaving Hoop Dreams, Perspective, Everyday, and Dimension in the section. 99.192.56.139 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with everything put forth here. The inclusion of several films covering an expanse of time is inconsistent with what this film is, and should certainly be removed. I also agree with your suggestions on which articles to keep. I agree with almost all of your suggestions on which articles to keep, but I believe that Perspective should be removed. It's virtually the same at the Up series, in that it's being filmed and released in chapters. Sock (tock talk) 18:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd vote to remove all the titles in this section; don't see why they are necessary. Boyhood is a basic "coming of age" film, and there are hundreds - if not thousands - of films, documentaries and TV shows that could easily be added to this group. If a few titles were retained, would keep Hoop Dreams and Everyday ... would also consider Antoine Doinel and the The Apu Trilogy; like Boyhood, both are fictional dramas. - Xenxax (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I second Xenxax's suggestion to remove all film titles. The "see also" section is being used like a category here i.e. to group together films which have a similar characteristic. If it is a notable characteristic then a category simply should be created, but ultimately this is not what this section is for. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the idea of removing the section altogether here. I have never really understood quite what the "see also" is supposed to be and it gets used in wildly different ways. I would suggest that if any of the things listed in the "see also" section are really related to the film Boyhood there should be a way of working a mention of them into the article. If, for example, several reviewers compare the film to the Doinel films or to the Up series or if Linklater talks about any of these films or film series as inspirations, then they are worth a mention. Otherwise it looks like a random assortment of things someone thought were vaguely similar. 99.192.56.139 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Xenxax, Betty Logan, and 99.192's comment that any individual film's relevance to this film should be sourced in the prose, otherwise an indulgent listing of other films' articles has no place in a See also section. It was proposed in Wikiproject Film that a 'List of films shot over several years' article be created to include all films related by such scope/approach, and a link to that list-article is to be included in the See also of this and any other film in the list (which is how the See also section should normally be used). --Lapadite (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Five people have contributed. Four are for full removal and one for partial removal of items in the section. I'm going to delete now. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping it can still do so here, but there does seem to be a consensus. 99.192.93.108 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.56.139)

I have gone ahead and created List of films shot over several years. I have no idea what to do with the lead, to be perfectly honest, but I think the table of films and the information included is a pretty good start. Any who would like to help me expand this list are welcome and encouraged to! Sock (tock talk) 14:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We may need to come up with a better title. Something like Eyes Wide Shut, which shot continuously for 2 years would qualify (but probably shouldn't), whereas something like Cast Away, which had a short production break would not (but arguably should be on such a list). Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

12 Years or 11 Years?

This has been going back and forth for months now, and it's rather tedious. The film was in fact shot on 12 different years (02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, and 13). I think people are getting confused by the fact that it says 02 to 13, and they simply subtract one from the other and get 11. This is incorrect, since the calculation doesn't include both 02 and 13. (13-2)+1 is the correct calculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrixieTop (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Filming started May 2002, and finished in, let's say, last semester of 2013. That's 11 years of shooting. It was released in the 12th year (2014), but shooting lasted 11 years. I believe what is said isn't that the film was shot ON 12 years, but rather shot FOR 12 years. And it was actually shot for 11. I'm not there. Message me! 16:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's twelve years of shooting. The space between the years is 11. Again, this is an inclusive calculation. The calculation you're making leaves a year out. Furthermore, the film was advertised (correctly) as a 12 year shoot. To call it 11 years is confusing, to say the least. TrixieTop (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"both Texan insurance agents who divorced and remarried"

Hawke's father is an actuary, not an insurance agent. -KaJunl (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• That is not what the cited source says. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is 2003?

The film never specifically states the years, except hinting in music choices, but then again music can get re-played. So why do we need to put the 'years' in? The years aren't subtitled in the film, and as there is supposed to be each year, then where is 2003? It seems almost like whoever wrote the plot on here decided to skip it. Where is the proof 2003 didn't happen in the film? So why do we need to put the years in? I've already seen a past 'plot' of this without the years, and it still read fine. It wasn't hard to understand that time had passed. So why do we need to, and whose idea or consensus decided to put the 'years' in? And also, where is 2003? The film was filmed every year, and I'm pretty sure they didn't decide to skip one year, and suddenly filmed pretending it was the year ahead. So where is it? What evidence is there that 2003 did not happen in the film, so therefore it is not listed on the plot? Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Should RedLetterMedia be quoted in "critical response" section?

Personally, I don't believe they should. However, I am open to it, provided that someone addresses one of my main concerns: I read a lot of movie pages, and with the exception of some of the "bad movies" featured on their "Best of the Worst" show, I have not seen a RedLetterMedia review (specifically from Half in the Bag) quoted in the critical response section of an article about an individual film that they have reviewed. Precedence would suggest that they simply aren't well known or considered credible enough for their reviews to be included alongside those from more famous/ well-respected critics. Beyond that, I think for inclusion in the "critical response" section, there has to be diversity of thought, and I'm not sure they said anything that RLM said has not been said by other people (most notably by the LA Times).

It appears like there was previous debate about this, and the consensus (at least to me personally) appears to be inclusive. I hope that we can defenetively, one way or another, come to a solution about whether or not to include the RLM review of Boyhood in the article.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed Arlington from intro

Whether or not Year 1 takes place in Arlington (even with the car sticker, it isn't clear), Mason doesn't grow up in that part of Texas. The vast majority of the film takes place in Houston and Central Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.114.57.40 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed Angelina County. It clearly does not take place in East Texas. Please stop adding the name of the town to the introduction. There is no indication of the town where the first year takes place.

It took 12 years to make!

Amazing! More needs to be made of this justly celebrated fact in the article. You saw the star GROW UP ON SCREEN! This is no ordinary film that took maybe three years at most to make, this is BOYHOOD and it took 12 years to make and I don't think we can even understand how incredible this fact is 12 years WOW! 73.114.151.90 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was made over the course of 12 years, a total of 40 or 50 days of actual filming, punctuated by long breaks. We discuss this in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

---

• Boyhood (2014 film) → Boyhood
• Boyhood → Boyhood (disambiguation)

– The 2014 film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on pageviews: 2014 film, 1951 film, book, novel. Shwcz (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The childhood state seems to have been forgotten in the comparison, and it has far greater long-term significance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Unbelievable, oppose oppose oppose In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose to Strong Oppose – boyhood (the state/period of a male being a boy), as a definition, is much greater than this movie, no matter how good. The current boyhood dab is appropriate as boyhood (as defined) uses boy as the subject article. All other boyhoods are minor in comparison.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Pageviews show this film is the overwhelming WP:primary topic for the title "Boyhood", even if you include the article boy. It's what most readers are looking for. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Recent pageviews are not the only way we decide whether something is a primary topic or not. Actual boyhood has greater WP:long-term significance, and the pageview history for the 2014 film is showing a downward trend. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

    Bearing in mind that we're talking about article titles on WP (ie, something that readers search for), how do you determine that the term "boyhood" -- as opposed to "childhood" or "boy" -- has more long-term significance, in that context, than Boyhood as the title of a film that attracts well over a thousand readers per day years after its release? Boyhood is currently a dab page attracting a mere 14 readers per day, nearly all of whom are also looking to read about the film. How do we justify forcing them to a dab page because a few editors subjectively decide "boyhood" should be more significant as an article title than it is, especially when the term is not even mentioned anywhere in boy or child? We don't need to rely on pageviews; just google "boyhood" to see what Google's algorithms think is the primary topic. Objectively, it's simply not the case that any significant number of people searching for "boyhood" want or expect anything other than the film. Station1 (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

    Google searches are more of a measure of commercial interest and current popularity than encyclopedic value. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per all opposes above. Ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose since "boyhood" by definition is a primary topic and more than just a dictionary definition. It seems like Wikipedia is missing articles for contextually significant topics about boyhood and girlhood, and these two areas could be explored by country or by culture. This film is of much more narrow note, and I find it unreasonable for it to usurp a more core meaning. It's like putting the company over the fruit at Apple. If the title has contextual significance in its meaning and is more than a dictionary definition, then it should not be overridden by derivatives. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undiscussed move reverted

• curprev 19:46, 23 October 2022 Shwcz talk contribs m 4,750 bytes 0 Shwcz moved page Boyhood (1951 film) to A Record of Youth undothank
• curprev 11:54, 25 October 2022 Robert Kerber talk contribs m 4,771 bytes 0 Robert Kerber moved page A Record of Youth to Boyhood (1951 film) over redirect: revert – Boyhood is most common title, see MUBI, Criterion Channel., Rotten Tomatoes etc. undothank

Thanks @Robert Kerber:. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Boyhood (2014 film) → Boyhood (film) – Primary topic based on pageviews: 2014 film, 1951 film. The 1951 film is now titled A Record of Youth. Shwcz (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination is different since it only purports to remove the year from the qualifier, not the whole qualifier. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Both topics have disambiguation terms, so they can't be primary topics because "(film)" or "(YYYY film)" does not exist in the real world. Basically, if there is no primary topic, disambiguate all secondary topics from each other. It is adding ambiguity to make this move, and it is also completely unnecessary because readers are not having a hard time finding the 2014 film's article. The vast majority of readers looking for it are not going to type "Boyhood (film)" to find the 2014 film. They'll type boyhood and go from there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. The 1951 film is also known as "Boyhood" and continues to be listed as "Boyhood" at such film sites as IMDb, Letterboxd or MUBI. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Also am opposed to the controversial move of the other film, which goes against the sources present. Suggest that be unmoved until a formal move request is made.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Films are never PDAB'd; see WP:PRIMARYFILM. I'll also note that we just had a very similar discussion a few weeks ago. 162 etc. (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Removing the year doesn't really help anyone anyway. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with all of Erik's arguments. The requested move is all the more questionable as the same user previously tried to delete the "film" qualifier to make the 2014 film the primary target, and now tried to make it the primary film target by moving the 1951 film article to a less frequently used alternate title, which a quick research in literature and on the internet will prove. Not good encyclopaedic work.--Robert Kerber (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.