This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: German / American 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 This article is supported by the German cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States: Cinema This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Switzerland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Director Gore Verbinski Had a 'Cathartic' Experience Making 'A Cure for Wellness' - Moviefone

Is there a source to verify that "loosley based on a book" arguement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenrd and anyone who feels like having an opinion. I removed it, Greenrd restored it.[1]

Sure, MOS:SEEALSO allows links that are "only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." In my opinion the relation in this case is to far-fetched and just seems randomly picked, plenty of other things, like Taking the waters would be much closer to the subject (but also unnecessary to add). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added it is that can be interesting for readers to learn that a plot point they might have assumed was entirely fictitious and never happened in reality - upper-class people marrying their siblings - not only actually happened in history, but actually happened several times in the same dynasty! I appreciate that it's a matter of opinion whether it should be added, but this is an article about a piece of entertainment, so I don't think we need to be too strict about what we include in See Also.--greenrd (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we agree what we disagree about (matter of opinion). To me it´s a minor, randomly picked plotpoint about sibling marriage and not worth including. We´ll see if other editors can help form a consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama please elaborate on what exactly qualifies as WP:PLOTBLOAT, because I went to find that exact manual of style entry after your initial reversion, which was a valid reversion. I then cut down the edit to the bare essentials to comply with said style entry. Now you are wholesale removing the edit repeatedly despite the chronology of the climactic scenes being wrong entirely, as well as the description of the rape scene preceding. Additionally, the closing scene added context due to the music cue implying a potential corruption of the main character, who has been unduly influenced by the "nightmarish treatments" earlier in the movie. This is a meaningful PLOT POINT, as I came to the page in the first place after seeing that closing scene and wondering if there were any interpretations seeing that as a cue for a sequel or that Volmer survived through the protagonist. DaPlat (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Daplat[reply]

Please start new discussions at the bottom of the page.

please elaborate on what exactly qualifies as WP:PLOTBLOAT This was explained on your talkpage.

I went to find that exact manual of style entry after your initial reversion, which was a valid reversion If you understood it was valid, why did you continue to revert to your preferred version?

I then cut down the edit to the bare essentials to comply with said style entry So you understood the issue with WP:PLOTBLOAT, despite having just said you didn't understand.

Now you are wholesale removing the edit repeatedly despite the chronology of the climactic scenes being wrong entirely No, I only reverted the repeatedly reinserted edits that tried to provide unnecessary amounts of minute detail.

Thank you for opening a discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to read my sequential edits, you would have seen I have repeatedly cut them down in size and detail. I believe the second entry was a fine balance, and you reverted it wholesale twice, clearly without reading it, as you are now equating it with the initial edit which I *do concede* was plotbloated.

I am going to restore that second edit. copypasta'ing your talk page was unnecessary, but to be fair, it was *also* unwarranted on mine from you.

If you feel the need to continue paring it down, please read the revised edit this time before you wholesale revert it again (which toed the line of edit warring far more than anything I did). DaPlat (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Daplat[reply]

When you are reverted, the correct course of action is to pursue a talkpage discussion. Edit warring your preferred version back in when editors object to the change is problematic. There were other issues with your edit, beyond the plot bloat, which is why you need to discuss them. Simply stating you'll be adding them back in is an unwise move. Grandpallama (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a good thing I never edit warred then. I was reverted with the comment "unnecessary detail". Good reversion. I agreed, after I went and found the WP:PLOTBLOAT style entry. I then revised my edit to remove unnecessary detail while retaining the chronology and plot fixes, and resubmitted. At which point, you started an edit war, by reverting repeatedly, despite, as clearly implied above, either *not* reading or acknowledging the revised edit was in fact a v2.

There were other issues with your edit -- At that juncture, YOU were welcome to open a talkpage discussion.

Edit warring your preferred version back in when editorS object to the change is problematic. emphasis mine.

Simply stating you'll be adding them back in is an unwise move Until you engage on an editorial basis, I will be (or rather, have). As at this juncture, all I've seen from you is lazy wholesale reversion of a good faith edit with merit.

If you have do not intend to wholesale revert my edit v2 as it stands at the moment, (which has stayed up for some time), I would support archiving this conversation at this juncture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaPlat (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You engaged in textbook edit warring, against the consensus version, instead of going to the talkpage to explain your edits and seek consensus for them. As the editor seeking to make changes, it is incumbent on you to get consensus, not on me to open a talkpage discussion.

Since I had reverted to the status quo version of the article and asked you to seek consensus ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles)" and "Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)"), you should have stopped edit warring your change back in. And yes, editors objected--the longstanding, stable version of an article is understood to represent implicit consensus, to which I added my objection.

I've advised you of policies and explained my actions (which you clearly haven't liked). In response, you've made bad-faith assumptions about me not reading your edits and vandalized my talkpage, which suggest you need to review both WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS.

Your edits still are adding unnecessary wordiness, but the addition of "freakishly" to the closing scene is more problematic as an interpretive statement. Per WP:FILMPLOT, we stick to only relaying what happens on screen without adding our own perceptions of it. At most, we could say the character smiles widely, or ambiguously, but adding other descriptors suggests an interpretation in a scene that is deliberately ambiguous. Grandpallama (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STATUSQUO

Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits.

f you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.

You baselessly accused me of edit warring first, after, as has been established, reverting my revised edit repeatedly without even reading it.

You're also wielding the revert button with abandon.

WP:REVEXP

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.

So yes, at that point, the assumption of good faith is under question, because of the repeated demonstration of your obnoxiously large ego.

WP:ROWN

Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

It's a good thing you're here to defend the complete dryness against any "wordy" chronological connecting clauses that might make plot summaries slightly less unreadable. DaPlat (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)DaPlat[reply]

Sigh. To invoke WP:STATUSQUO is to acknowledge that you should have stopped forcing in your edits. I didn't reword your edit because the majority of it was problematic, which you would have understood had you opened a discussion to ask about the edits. It's reasonable to expect editors to reword an edit when there are small issues with it; when the majority of the edit is problematic, expecting another editor to go through and trim 85% of it to make sure the okay portion is untouched is not reasonable. None of the warnings I left on your page were baseless. All that said, your claims about me not reading your edits continue to be completely false, and your obnoxiously large ego is an obvious personal attack, which you made after just being cautioned about such things. Grandpallama (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should both try to relax a bit? If you honestly can't find a way to compromise, you can try dispute resolution. Wikipedia has a lot of arcane guidelines on how to write various parts of articles. This can make it difficult to get the version you want into the article, especially if another person thinks your version is worse. Dispute resolution can help to highlight relevant guidelines and find compromises that fit within them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4731136/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_stry_pl. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]