Talk:The Visit (2015 American film)

Sundowning?

IMDB shows the movie tile as "Sundowning" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3567288/) --91.64.77.218 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Failed source

The previously provided citaton "M. Night Shyamalan begins filming new project in Pennsylvania". onlocationvacations.com. 24 February 2014. Retrieved 24 February 2014. is about a different film, apparently. I removed it from the article. A source is therefore needed for the locations used in this film. DES ^(talk) 14:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Genre

Several of the sources cited describe this as a "thiller" or a "supernatural thriller" or just as "creepy". Only one uses the term "horror". Why is "horror" the listed genre with no mention of the other sources? DES ^(talk) 14:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating the discussion. Why are people believing this is a comedy film? It certainly wasn't marketed as being comedy. Versus001 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added an external link to an interview with Shyamalan, in which he discusses how the movie is intended to combine horror and comedy. Storye book (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In the interview Shyamalan calls it mostly a thriller and a horror film and only mentions 'dark comedy aspects'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.49.192.92 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Summary?

There was a very detailed synopsis of the film that someone deleted with the edit summary "Deleted some content, since it revealed a lot anout the movie" (IP 2601:647:4003:cc3:9ba:f4bb:bd1f:f62c). Is it against Wikipedia rules to post a detailed story synopsis before a film's official release? I can't think of any other reason why it was deleted. Plenty of other film pages have similarly detailed summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1003:1023:3103:DF46:34F6:66B9 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In general the film project tries to limit plot summaries to about 700 words, give or take, so as to hit the highlights of the film instead of having the entire script added here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot

I've restored the plot section, although it could do with editing to make it shorter, as Wikipedia allows spoilery plot synopses - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler. Red Fiona (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Shake it Off?"

The plot description says, "When Rebecca asks Doris about what happened the day Paula left home, Doris begins to shake it off, until Rebecca calms her." "Shake it off" either means to shake off someone's grip, or to forget about/get over something. Neither of those things are indicated in this sentence. It sounds like Doris is freaking out, if she needs to be calmed. Can someone who's seen the movie clarify?Sadiemonster (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Australians in an American film

It's not unusual for actors from foreign countries to be starring in an American film. There have been many cases of this happening with other films, and they're not noted at all. The best example I can list from the top of my head is David Oyelowo, who is English but has appeared in a number of American films. Parsley Man (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

While it might not be unusual for Australian actors to appear in big budget American studio feature films, I think it is quite unusual and significant that a relatively low budget ($5Million) film produced and shot in Southeast Pennsylvania by a Philadelphia-based filmmaker with a very small cast to feature two relatively unknown and inexperienced Australian juvenile actors in the two principal roles as opposed to using local talent. I find this to be an unusual and significant fact and including it also certainly does no harm to the article. This information is demonstrably accurate, sourced (by way of wikilink to the two actors' entries), and is provided in a single 14-word sentence which hardly overburdens the article. And finally Wikipedia does not presume that every piece of information any editor contributes to an article must be of interest to every person who reads the entry. Being judged to be of potential interest to some readers is all that is required. Centpacrr (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This does harm the article because this is simply how independent films usually go. Small casts, small budget, unknown actors; location of shooting and nationalities of actors have no bearing on the subject at all. For example, Chronicle, an American film, was shot in South Africa and Canada with an all-American cast, but there's nothing special being noted about that in its article, now is there? Parsley Man (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree for the reasons I have stated above, and claiming that revealing that two unknown juvenile actors from Australia were brought over 10,000 miles to appear in a film in which any of dozens of local child actors could have well been used "does harm" to an article because "this is simply how independent films usually go" is, with respect, really no more than just your personal unsupported speculation and/or opinion.

As I noted above, the Wikipedia project does not presume that every piece of information any editor contributes to an article must be of interest to -- and/or already known by -- every person who reads the entry. As long as it is accurate, relevant and supportable, its being of potential interest to some readers -- or even just one -- is all that is required. That is the case here. The information is demonstrably true, properly sourced, and meets the letter and spirit of WP policy and guidelines.

Just because information contributed by other editors may be of no particular interest to (or already known by) you or somebody else is therefore insufficient justification to delete it. This is a precept of the project which you will find to be how it works by design and in practice as you get more experience contributing and editing Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "rôle" vs "role"

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives four definitions of "role" the first of which -- "A character or part played by a performer" -- includes a circumflex over the "ô", i.e. "rôle". The other three definitions which are related to functions or characteristic behaviour do not use a circumflex. Therefore in this context the word is used in the note in the article ("Both DeJonge and Oxenbould are unknown juvenile actors who were brought from Australia to Pennsylvania to star in the film despite there being many local child actors available who could have been cast to play the film's lead rôles."), the circumflex spelling "rôle" is correct. Centpacrr (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, no, you couldn't have been any more wrong. "Role" is being used in every single article about a movie, actor, etc., etc. I have never seen the word "rôle" until now. The spell checker isn't even registering the latter as a word! Check the articles of all the actors appearing in this movie for a start! Parsley Man (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply because you (or any other editor) is not familiar with the correct spelling variation of a word in a specific usage does not make that word (in this case "rôle") wrong. What it just means that it is a spelling and usage that you were previously unfamiliar with and have now learned about from another editor/contributor. Which, by the way, is what Wikipedia is meant to do. Centpacrr (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And what about new readers who suddenly stumble across the word and have no idea what it means or why it's marked that way? Also, does this mean EVERY appropriate article should have that mark put in whenever "role" comes up? Parsley Man (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think anyone reading this sentence would "have no idea what it means" because "rôle" is spelled with a circumflex? REALLY!? With respect, sir, the chances of that in this case and context are precisely zero. I'm afraid that you are really vastly underestimating Wikipedia's users. If, however, for any reason someone who is not familiar with this (or any other) word spelling variation they may come across in Wikipedia or elsewhere (as you apparently were here) and want's to find out, well that's what dictionaries are for. Centpacrr (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about in terms of users, but just any average reader using Wikipedia. Parsley Man (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect, sir, I must admit that it is a puzzlement to me as to why you (or anybody) would differentiate between an "average reader" (whatever that is supposed to be), a contributor/editor, or anybody else who visits or "uses" Wikipedia. To me they are all the "users" of equal value, and again it would appear that you are vastly underestimating all of them. Wikipedia has never been meant to be a pablumized resource written at the level of the "lowest common denominator" -- no encyclopedia or reference work is. If it were, the project would be a place of barren vapidity indeed. Centpacrr (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mother's name: "Loretta Jamison"

According to the children, their mother's name is "Loretta" (not "Paula") based on a statement by Becca made on the train ride from Philadelphia to the fictional town of "Masonville, PA" in which she says: "Our mother, Loretta Jamison, is dating an eligible and rather rakish looking man named Miguel Diego Torres. He's in love with her. We've decided to promote this union by giving them time. They're going on a trip." The mother is also referred to as "Loretta Jamison" about 38 minutes into the film by the character "Nana" when Becca asks her about what happened when their mother left home. These are the only two times the mother is mentioned by name in the film, she is never called "Paula" or any other given name, and is referred to in the credits only as "Mom". (Jamison is the mother's maiden name.) Based on this, I have therefore changed her name in the article to "Loretta". Centpacrr (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Found footage?

I've seen trailers of this movie, and im not so sure that this is a found footage-like movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comedy horror?

Could someone explain to me why this film was categorised as a 'comedy horror'? The film's plot is very dreary overall, I've seen it a few times, and there wasn't a single scene that could by any standards be seen as comedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.144.214 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)