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

Film: 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 American cinema task force.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Dave Bautista Says Being Cast in 'Knives Out 2' is 'Terrifying,' But Also Validating

So, it just announced that filming for the movie began today, so can we move it to mainspace please? FilmLover72 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmLover72: Yes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we note somehow that Knives Out 2 is not the actual title of the movie, just a placeholder for fans? Director Rian Johnson has never used the term "Knives Out 2" when referring to the movie Nevermore27 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow what Netflix says. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: Netflix confirmed Knives Out 2 as the title with its 2022 slate trailer and the official website. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I'm generally of the opinion that that's more of a marketing tool than what the actual title will end up being, based on my read of Rian's social media. But this appears to be as good as an official title until/unless we're told otherwise Nevermore27 (talk)

From what I've seen with films that have a subtitle that's just illustrating it's part of a franchise, the subtitle is left out (Rogue One, Hobbs & Shaw, The Many Saints of Newark). Of course there is exception to the rule, with Solo: A Star Wars Story retaining the subtitle. But I'm asking since Johnson didn't include it in his Twitter announcement (the statement itself I mean, not the accompanying video), as well as state When I made Knives Out, that’s what excited me about the prospect of making more mysteries with Daniel as Benoit Blanc - to emulate Christie and have every film be like a whole new book, with its own tone, ambition, reason for being… and (ta dah) title, essentially that he intended for it to be it's own story. Should the article be moved to just Glass Onion? Rusted AutoParts 05:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netlix has the full title. I would be fine with Glass Onion though. A person in Georgia (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the move history, the reason why this page is titled Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is because WP:NATURALDAB prefers natural disambiguations over parenthetical disambiguations. That is also why Rogue One omits the subtitle but Solo: A Star Wars Story doesn't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. A person in Georgia (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in all promotion, the title is glass onion: a knives out mystery Joopfoop (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joopfoop the subtitle is just for marketing so fans of Knives Out are aware that this is a sequel. The film itself does not use the subtitle when the title appears. 27.252.216.242 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The billing block at the bottom of the poster includes the subtitle. It is not a marketing thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP is saying that he/she saw the film in a theater and when the title appears, it omits the subtitle. Could be wrong. -2pou (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that's noted in the article, but what I'm saying is that we should not consider Glass Onion the official/full title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Onion is the official title in the film, as released in theaters. The words Knives Out do not appear anywhere on screen even once. The inclusion of Knives Out is purely a marketing push from Netflix. This article should be titled Glass Onion. Unless you work for Netflix, nobody is referring to this movie as Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery because that title makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.67.159 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the billing block displays the official title as registered/licensed by the studio. In this case, it's Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. Many, many films have different titles onscreen, to name a few off the top of my head: Dune (2021 film), The Irishman, Iron Man 3, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, It (2017 film), Furious 7, so on and so forth. This isn't a new thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are other works named Glass Onion, so the A Knives Out Mystery is there to show that this is a sequel to a movie, not a song. Klee Bakudan (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: your good faith edit claims a "standard wording" regarding the onscreen title. What standard? — HipLibrarianship ^talk 06:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADALT. It is standard to note alternate names in parentheses/commas/efns in the first sentence of the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My latest edit did so, yet you reverted nonetheless. MOS:LEADALT does not specify the particular syntax in the examples you provided. Indeed, MOS:LEADALT arguably favors another edit you reverted, when it advises editors to "spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." — HipLibrarianship ^talk 01:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my revert, I listed several examples of film articles with alternate titles. Did you take a look at them? This is the standard convention on film articles, so we should be as consistent as possible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at them. I tried to make that clear when I noted the particular syntax in the examples you provided is not specified by LEADALT. And to repeat: LEADALT arguably favors a non-parenthetical approach to alternate titles, per the advice to spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your wording is not technically prohibited by LEADALT, the examples I listed are clear evidence that the convention/consensus on film articles is to note alternate titles this way. I have yet to encounter a film article that breaks that info into a separate sentence, and also that just seems unnecessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiplibrarianship: I do not understand why you continue to alter the wording that is consistent with all other film articles on Wikipedia. This is borderline edit-warring. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The onscreen title is "Glass Onion" and that should be the title. At least in the lead, with the descriptive subtitle in parenthesis. This is obviously not part of the actual title. No more than "XYZ: A Novel" is a title of any novel. Jmj713 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to say (titled onscreen as simply Glass Onion), I'm not sure who deleted that and why. I've restored it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article (‘Glass Onion’ Director Rian Johnson Laments Film Having ‘Knives Out’ In Title) could be used to add Johnson’s take on the title in prose (maybe under production or release). Mike Allen 06:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We should remove the "titled onscreen as simply Glass Onion" part from the lead. It's trivial (not a major difference), not a critical defining element. The info about why the film was given the subtitle is notable as it's covered by the Deadline source above, but it should be covered in the article body. It's not critical material for the lead. Popcornfud (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is it okay if we do that? RTTealer (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this is standard practice on film articles, and I don't find it trivial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Daniel Craig and the two primary filmakers receiving $100 million for the sequels is hard to square with a budget of $40 million for the first film. 110.145.48.3 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not really, if the first film was effective 195.50.123.227 (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--and now it says "$469 million", and gives no citation. Philgoetz (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is nonlinear and hides information from the viewer, revealing additional information in flashbacks at the end of the movie. The plot summary presents events in a linear fashion that obscures the well crafted structure of the movie. As an example, for most of the movie the viewer believes Helen Brand to be her murdered sister Cassandra "Andi". Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy down the hidden note in the plot summary which explains this: The plot summary is not designed to emulate the experience of watching the film. As such, events should be transcribed in chronological order instead of narrative order, and they should be described as how they actually happened. WP:FILMPLOT permits rearranging plot elements to improve understanding of complex film plots, and WP:PLOTSUMNOT directly addresses films with nonlinear plots. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not If the original is nonlinear or experimental in its structure, then the article should state that fact in prose imply that the plot summary should mention the flashbacks, which are part of what makes the plot convoluted and nonlinear? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that would only be necessary for highly complex films such as Memento. I know I was the one who linked to WP:PLOTSUMNOT, but that's just a how-to-guide and not a guideline. The relevant guideline is WP:FILMPLOT, which states: Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether to use chronological order or narrative order, but rather whether to mention the techniques used to gate-keep information to the viewer. Shouldn't structural decision that greatly affect the viewers experience be briefly mentioned? Something like For dramatic effect, the movie conceals critical details and later reveals them in flashbacks.?

BTW, Why did you change the {{tqq}} around one quotation to {{tq}}, thus removing the the framing quotation marks? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this isn't unnecessary unless in extraordinary circumstances. We don't usually break the fourth wall in plot summaries. As for the {{tq}} change, that was just an aesthetic change, i.e. I just thought it looked nicer. No particular reason, and I find it strange you're asking about this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sorting in chronological order already break the fourth wall?

The reason that I asked about the template change is that you changed it to {{tq}} for one quote but left it as {{tqq}} for another. Wouldn't the same aesthetic considerations apply to both? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the fourth wall means inserting real-world statements such as The film opens with ... or A montage features ... or In a flashback .... Reorganizing a plot is not breaking the fourth wall. As for {{tq}}, I already stated that there was no particular reason for my change and that is irrelevant to this discussion anyway, so I would recommend that we not dwell further into such a trivial matter. Like, seriously, that was just a minor cosmetic change, there's no deeper meaning or hidden implications to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original plot summary a few days ago, and I have to say that I disagree very strongly with the re-ordering. The purpose of the plot summary is to explain the story, and the order of the revelations is extremely relevant to the story. The style guideline says that non-linear plots can be reordered "if it makes the plot easier to explain," and I can see how that would be essential for explicitly non-linear movies like Memento or Pulp Fiction. Glass Onion isn't that, though: it has a cut-and-dried flashback in the middle which can be clearly explained. (The style guideline also says it's "often useful" to keep the plot in the order that it's in.)

I'm not really a Wikipedian, but it looks like other movies with similar flashbacks are usually told here in the order they're shown. The Hateful Eight is a good example; its flashback relies on exposition that's provided during the first half of the movie. I think that's also the case here. 108.169.4.250 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with chronicling the plot in narrative order, in addition to inappropriately breaking the fourth wall and making the plot unnecessarily more confusing, is that we would be forced to make inaccurate statements. For instance, it would be incorrect to say that Andi arrived on the island or that Blanc received an invitation when neither actually happened in the film, but there is no way to go around this without "spoiling" the twist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree with this point of view, particularly the idea that the current (12-23-2022) Plot summary breaks with Wikipedia precedent in its description of an arguably complicated story presented here out of narrative/plot order. I have read hundreds of film plot summaries on Wikipedia over the years, and have never read one, that I can recall, anyway, that so appears to be structured as a series of deliberate spoilers rather than the explanation of a complicated narrative. I'm not sure why the editor felt the need to do what they did, but as the commenter/editor mentions, Glass Onion, while clever, is not explicitly non-linear, or even particularly complicated; if one accepts the academia-standard idea that film "story" is "what happens" and "plot" is "how the story is presented," the current "plot summary" is really a "story" summary, and is therefore not really appropriate for Wikipedia. I have neither the skill nor the time to re-write the summary, but I would highly recommend returning the plot summary to the original version, whatever that was. Cheers to all who work on this invaluable resource. 2600:1700:57A8:7720:BD68:7FFA:8C0A:DAC2 (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this is my first Talk Page Reply; I intended to agree with the writer of the Reply above that begins with "I wrote the original plot summary," and not with Infinitenexus. With respect, I believe that it is very possible to explain Glass Onion in way closer to the experience of viewing the film; I repeat my recommendation that the current summary be replaced either with the previous version or a new one. 2600:1700:57A8:7720:BD68:7FFA:8C0A:DAC2 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you come up with a way for us to write the plot summary in narrative order without having to make inaccurate statements such as "Andi arrives on the island" or "Blanc receives an invitation"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see an IP is repeatedly combining Monáe's credits as Helen and Andi in the cast section. First, the hidden note assertion that Monáe [...] spends a roughly equal amount of the film's running time as each character is incorrect, the only time where she plays Andi is during the bar, courtroom, murder, and corpse scenes. In addition, the flashback sequences feature Monáe portraying Helen, not Andi, as was previously stated erroneously here. is also incorrect. The previous text stated Monáe also portrays Andi in flashback sequences, it did not imply that the only person who appeared in the flashbacks was Helen. All it's saying is that Andi only appears in flashbacks, which is correct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, insert some kind of spoiler warning for the entire Cast section. Mentioning "Janelle Monáe as Helen Brand" is spoiling a LOT of the plot in the movie. The cast list would not be the place where one would expect spoilers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvidstue (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPOILER. And the movie has been out for a month. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which ever character name is at the end scene credits is what should be in the article. I haven't seen the film, so I can't say. Mike Allen 17:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC):[reply]

I just pulled the film up and they are credited as "Helen & Andi Brand". That's what the character name should be in the cast section. Mike Allen 17:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That approach works. I'm fine so long as we don't give sole credit to Andi, who barely appears in the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Lionsgate logo in the opening or closing credits. 2804:214:81B5:A3E7:215C:EA07:3B3C:6AE5 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be? Netflix secured the rights to the film as mentioned in the article. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note on the article advising editors not to change the genre without consensus. This note relates to MOS:FILMGENRE. Doobledoop ignored the note and changed it anyway. I've reverted the change.[1] If there's support to change the genre that case can be made here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! Thank you for creating this section. I restarted the discussion on the Knives Out talk page as well. The edits were made to create consistency with critical consensus and the style of similar pages.

Several reputable critics' and professional associations have nominated the film primarily as a "musical or comedy."^[1][2]  Each page for a film nominated in this category includes comedy as part of the primary sub-genre in the lead section. The MOS:FILMGENRE guideline mentions "primary genre or sub-genre." This does not mean that the genre must reference only one page, as the sub-genre may be a combination of different genres (eg, mystery comedy). The page for Tick, Tick... Boom! (film) provides an example of how the primary sub-genre for a film may link to multiple pages.

I suggest including the specific sub-genre as "mystery comedy" with links to the pages for Mystery film and Mystery comedy (or, if it is felt that only one be included, the latter) in order to be consistent with critical consensus. Nancy Drew (2007 film) provides an example of this format in the lead section. Doobledoop (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be on the Netflix app yesterday and wanted to add some promotional material to the discussion. The film is placed in both mystery and comedy with equal weight, and the three primary words Netflix uses to promote the film as the official production company are "offbeat," "witty," "dark comedy." Doobledoop (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially classified as a “mystery comedy” as is the first Knives Out. I believe both articles should be changed to resemble this. AlienChex (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classified where? The consensus on the Knives Out article was mystery film. Nemov (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This topic was recently addressed and resolved at Knives Out. The consensus was that the lede sentence should describe the film as a murder mystery. It stands to reason that should be the case for this article as well. Nemov (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masem's inclusion of a free image has been removed by two editors (myself and Cinnamonrollsaregood). Since Masem has ignored my call to discuss, I've opened up this for discussion. The image that's been added doesn't improve the article, it doesn't look like the character that Craig plays in the film. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not expecting the image to look like the character, but the actor that is casted. This is common standard practice across all film articles. Masem (t) 16:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a guideline to cite for this inclusion or is this just WP:OTHERSTUFF? Thanks - Nemov (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM#Free licence images Masem (t) 16:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The guideline doesn't appear to be a requirement. I guess it comes to down to preference per film article. I still don't find this particular picture of Craig to be helpful for his article. Nemov (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I propose replacing the images of Rian Johnson and Daniel Craig with other images that supplement information? The image of the Mona Lisa, to me, warrants inclusion because it's a plot point and gives the reader of the article more information. What if we replaced the images of Craig and Johnson with something else? Ideas include,

- Album cover from the Beatles album that the song "Glass Onion" is from. The film was named after the song.

- The island the film was shot on in Greece.

- Maybe a comparison image showing what certain shots looked like before/after VFX. The Glass Onion building was a VFX creation.

The main reason I wanted to delete the images was that the bumpers beneath them didn't provide any information, other than saying "Here's a photo of Rian Johnson". It seems a bit silly to me. Thoughts? Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Craig makes more sense per MOS:FILM than a picture of the island. I don't really care if there's a free use image, but it's kind of a separate topic. Nemov (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my initial question, what information does the image of Craig add? I don't see the sense in having the image just for the sake of having it. Craig appears on the films poster and his name is mentioned several times in the article before the image appears, so it's already well established that he's in the film. The bumper underneath his image reads "Daniel Craig reprises his role as Detective Benoit Blanc". This information has already been presented elsewhere in the article/in the lead though, yes? I feel the same goes for the image of Johnson. If it isn't presenting the reader with any new/additional information, why is it there? Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have strong feelings about whether to use this picture of Craig, but I think if the article does use the picture the caption shouldn't remain ""Daniel Craig reprises his role as Detective Benoit Blanc". That wording of the caption really sounds as if it's saying that the picture depicts Craig as Blanc, which it does not. AJD (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knives Out (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knives Out (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Wake Up Dead Man#Disambiguation. I posted a similar notice at Talk:Pop (U2 album)#Wake Up Dead Man. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also placing this here, just in case. This is a notice that there is a draft for Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery at Draft:Wake Up Dead Man until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. guess too late for all that. There is now two pages for this film. And a draft. Wow. We are really eager to get this page published for this film. Mike Allen 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the second back here as NFF is clear on this. This first is under a Prod and can't really be touched until that resolves, though agree that should not be the final page. — Masem (t) 19:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles should not have existed in the first place. Those articles' sole existence fails WP:NFF as no filming has begun yet, though is reported to begin in either June or November. The remaining one at Wake Up Dead Man (upcoming film) should absolutely be deleted or redirected as a WP:CONTENTFORK, as there is already the draft being worked on from before those two articles were inappropriately made. As for the title, see Draft talk:Wake Up Dead Man for the WP:CONCISE rationale in why no further disambiguation for this article title will be needed once it is properly moved to the mainspace. The title of this film does not mean the sequel has to follow the same titling. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDly redirected it as there was no point in waiting for the improper and misleading deletion request. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]