This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. 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.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Anyone can add content. We all volunteer here. I’m ok with adding a few sentences about it. But why controversial? Why must it be under controversy. MikeAllen13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There’s the controversy that I have not seen a single person agree with the use of ai over hiring talented graphic designers
Joopfoop (
talk)
15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No one currently making noise about this is in any position to know whether that happened-- that is, whether the filmmakers used AI to generate an image instead of hiring graphic designers. The statement in Variety referred to the "graphics and production design team" and it obviously did have one, since the film is very design-heavy. If you're suggesting that at some point there was a conversation like "We don't have anyone on the team who's capable of drawing this title card image. Maybe we should hire another designer? No, let's just use AI"... anything's possible but it's equally/more likely that an artist on the team wanted to get a certain look and played around with an AI tool to get it. We simply don't know and it's not the business of a WP article to speculate. ←
Hob17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, there's definitely an attempted review bombing on Letterboxd, which is what Variety is reporting on. I suppose the question is whether or not this is
WP:DUE. Of the 19 top critics on Rotten Tomatoes, there's only one negative review (
by Matt Zoller Seitz), and while that review does call out the use of AI It doesn't quite look like 1977, especially the unfortunate use of AI-generated interstitial and background art, which pretty much screams "tech bro fads of the 21st Century."), that's not the reason the movie is panned.
Mackensen(talk)17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the likes of Variety, Forbes, and IndieWire are writing articles about the situation, I feel it's worth noting. I wrote up a blurb and put it in the Reception section, feel free to read over and revise.
TropicAces (
talk)
19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
Ending detail not mentioned in plot?
I think it's pretty important to mention that as Jack stands in the studio and the police sirens blare, he is also hearing "Dreamer, here, awake" being spoken by the sceptic/hypnotist. It suggests that Jack may or may not be in reality at that moment, and that he could be still in a hypnotic state that the hypnotist is having trouble bringing him out of.
216.121.177.33 (
talk)
01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not my interpretation, it is a crucial point that leaves the ending up to audience interpretation. Why mention the sound of the police sirens and not the only other sound present at the end, the rather important dialogue?
Just think the ending was left ambiguous on purpose and the article should reflect this. We don't know for certain that Jack is back in reality as the article currently reflects.
216.121.177.33 (
talk)
14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
update: forgive me. I just rewatched and notice it's Jack saying this to himself, implying he is trying to awaken himself from hypnosis but he's in fact in reality.
216.121.177.33 (
talk)
14:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply