Talk:Black Swan (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Perfect Blue?

Something should be added about this - even if the dircector denies any similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.252.207.66 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. That comparison is exactly what came to mind even from just viewing the commercials, and seeing the full film only enhances the suspicion, which brought me to check this Wikipedia article to see if any critic had made mention of it. Another example of Hollywood ripping off anime. ~ 172.162.115.143 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reliable sources noting the comparison? BOVINEBOY2008 09:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The director OWNS the rights to Perfect Blue and used them to copy a scene shot-for-shot in a previous film of his - there's no denying he knows Perfect Blue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.252.201.88 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither supporting nor denying the fact. In order for it to be included in the article, it needs to be supported by reliable sources to make it verifiable. BOVINEBOY2008 10:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's this (cited in Perfect Blue). —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

@ BOVINEBOY: I'm Perfectly aware of Wikipedia's demand for reliable sourcing (rather than just sneaking in some ambiguous remark like, "Some people[who?] have noted pronounced similarities between movie X and Y.")... which is why we're presently restricted to whining about it on the Talk page. The problem with any such claim is that it can only be called opinion unless the film's creators were to publicly admit to "borrowing"; even a famed critic hypothetically publishing accusations in a movie review wouldn't qualify as anything but personal opinion. However, directors will sometimes openly acknowledge their creative influences in dvd commentary tracks, if any such thing materializes in this case. I don't understand why Aronofsky would deny it here given that he actively sought out the rights to Perfect Blue specifically to ape an admired scene for use in his other film. The quoted critique in the article noting "preposterousness" in "mixing mental illness with... rigors of ballet" becomes more sympathetic if considering that the (alleged) original source material was forcibly reworked into this ballet setting, resulting in an imPerfect fit.

For this article, I think it would be safe to rearrange the existing paragraph from the Perfect Blue page (with those same citations) to read:

"In 2010 Aronofsky acknowledged there being similarities between the 1997 anime movie Perfect Blue and his film Black Swan, but said that it was not an influence.[5] Darren Aronofsky had previously paid for the rights to Perfect Blue in order to use the live-action version of that film's bathtub scene for Requiem For A Dream.[4]"

-- These neutrally reported facts would lead the reader (by crafty implication) to draw their own conclusion without explicitly violating any Wikipedia N.O.R. rules, afaik. ~ 172.162.222.242 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it! BOVINEBOY2008 08:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One issue is that the last sentence is not a fact by Wikipedia standards. The given citation is a blog post by Perfect Blue director Satoshi Kon about meeting Aronofsky. It does not say anything about paying for rights. I added a "citation needed" notice. I think we should remove that sentence if a citation is not found. 1-54-24 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this helps - at least there are some images: http://www.badassdigest.com/2010/12/14/borders-line-is-black-swan-the-perfect-blue-remake-weve-been-waiting-for 79.252.193.167 (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I discovered the source of the frequently repeated but miscited meme about Aronofsky paying to use a Perfect Blue scene in Requiem for a Dream. In Perfect Blue director Satoshi Kon's blog cited above, he notes that the budget of Aronofsky's Pi was at an independent-film level of about 6 million yen. Someone seems to have badly misinterpreted Kon's words to mean that Aronofsky paid US$59,000 (roughly Pi's budget) to use a Perfect Blue scene in Requiem for a Dream. I'm removing that miscited statement from the article. 1-54-24 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it really not relevant to mention Perfect Blue in this article while there are videos on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wCn9LoZdNU) that compare shots from both movies and show undeniable resemblance between each other? And adding to that, as mentioned in above comments, he also owns the rights for a live action adaptation of Perfect Blue (https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2010/aug/26/anime-satoshi-kon-japanese-cinema, just ctrl+f Aronofsky). Not only that he does cite Satoshi Kon as an influence. The mention of this is very relevant and I believe should be added, be it on Aronofsky's page or in this one.--177.67.253.36 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually arrived at this page trying to find the name of "that movie that everyone says Black Swan copied" (Quoting my own conversation). I wanted to add it to movie night. So imagine my surprise when not a single of mention of it was on this page. Frankly I'm a little disgusted that INFORMATION is mysteriously missing on a Wikipedia page, for those who might be seeking it. Especially when such information is readily available on dozens of other websites. (Trust me, I checked. Couldn't find the name on here, after all.) And personally, I don't care what Aronofsky did or did not claim. There are tons of sources going into great detail about the similarities. Intentional or not is irrelevant to the fact that it should definitely get a mention on here, due to the overwhelming public consensus. Feel free to say that he denies it right after that. In fact, doesn't the mere fact that he publicly deny it mean that MANY PEOPLE NOTED THE SIMILARITIES? Why else would he even have to mention it in the first place? And as an aside, it also makes me wonder if outside interests are trying to suppress this information. I can't think of any other logical reason why it would be absent. 147.21.64.22 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As part of the grand conspiracy of outside interests, I'd like to point out that unveiling the conspiracy seldom leads to unveiling the conspiracy.

At the moment, you are arguing what you would like to add is very important to the article. That is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. We cannot, however, decide whether or not something should be included before we determine if it can be added.

IMO, you'll need to tackle the "can" part first: directly state what you would like to add to the article and provide an independent reliable source which directly supports the material. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)