Talk:Oldboy (2003 film)

Is Joo-Hwan Dae-Su's brother?

"It's strange. Dae-su and Joo-Hwan both address Joo-Hwan as 'sam-choon' which translate literally to "uncle". It could also be some sort of older male relative. (Such as a person's mother's cousin) However that would mean they were either brothers or brother-in-laws. The movie does not specify who is older, because they do not address each other as "hyung". (what a younger guy says to another guy, brother or not, who is older than them by a few years) They might possibly be the same age. However, in many korean people's experience, their dad's friends are called 'ah=juh-shi', NOT 'sam-choon'. Thus there are some possibilities.

1. Joo-Hwan is Dae-su's brother of the same/similar age. Because if Joo-Hwan was older, he would be called "hyung". Likewise If Dae-su was older, Joo-Hwan would call Dae-su "Hyung".

2. Joo-Hwan is Dae-su's friend of a same/similar age. This is most unlikely because he addresses himself as " Joo-Hwan sam-choom", not "Joo-Hwan ah-juh-shi"

3. Joo-Hwan is Dae-Su's brother in law. This is most unlikely due to the formality of how he is addressing Dae-su's wife.

4. Joo-Hwan is a distant relative to Dae-Su. Perhaps a second cousin or cousin's son or something?: -Mr. SmartyPants

"Actually, Joo-Hawn was Dae-su's friend, not brother. The word sam-choon (삼춘) in Korean is a term that is often used affectionately between children and close friends of parents." - --Rommely 08:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) -That is incorrect. Sam-choon means uncle.

That is debatable. I've never really called any of my father's very affection or close friends by that term. Rather I called them "ah-juh-shii" which is what Mido calls Dae-Su. Is it possible for someone to address another by "uncle" when they are not really related like that? Possibly, but It's not really definite what Joo-Hwan's relation is with Dae-Su. Either brother or friend. My first impression was that they were siblings. But friend does seem to make more sense.

I wanted to add that the person who picks up Daesu from the police station is his brother NOT his friend, on the phone conversation he says "som-chone" which is Korean for uncle. - Chris K. Lewis

Yeah, I remember that. Good job catching it! Feel free to make edits though. I will make the change. (see below) --C S (Talk) 08:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Joo-Hawn was Dae-su's friend, not brother. The word sam-choon (삼춘) in Korean is a term that is often used affectionately between children and close friends of parents. - --Rommely 08:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I watched the movie again soon after I wrote the above and it's clear that they are not siblings. For example, Dae-Su tells Joo-Hwan about what he had seen at school during a conversation that takes place before Dae-Su moves away, and Joo-Hwan asks Dae-Su about his moving; consequently Dae-Su never learns of what happened after Joo-Hwan leaks the news to everyone. Also, it's apparent in the way they address each other. --C S (Talk) 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy that bails Dae-Su out is his brother. This is evident when he's on the phone with Dae-su's daughter and says the word "sahm-chun" which translate to "uncle" in Korean. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.210.72 (talk • contribs)

I am Korean, and I guarantee that Joo-Hwan is NOT Dae-su's brother. Children or babies are supposed to call 'uncle' the friend of their father. I think that in English, it's the same. Indiana Pacers players called 'Uncle Reggie' Reggie Miller. Does it mean that Jermaine O'neil is the cousin of Reggie Miller? Egressio 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) egressio

Spoiler warning?

I think that we should prepare the 'FAQ' section with "spoiler warning" in this article. Many spectators leave the theater with lots of questions unsolved, sometimes because of cultural difference, sometimes because they couldn't pay attention to some details. I mean questions like "Why 15 years?", "name of chinese restaurant", "meaning of the title OLD BOY", "Evergreen thing", "meaning of the name Oh Dae-Soo", "Ants on a train", "Did Dae-Soo forget all this in the last scene?" etc.

---

One day, as it turned out, Dae-su had spied on Woo-jin and his sister, Soo-ah, and discovered that they were having an incestuous relationship -- i think it should be noted that Deasu wasn't aware that the scene he witnessed was incest when he blabbed about it, if I'm wrong about this somebody just change it back. 216.207.246.230 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Oh Dal-su is also in Sympathy for Mr. Vengence at the very end, he is in that terrorist organization that kills the guy at the very end of the movie. As you can see, the reason I didn't make the change myself is because I don't remember the terrorist group name or the guy who was killed at the end. My question is Oh Dal-su , who is the jailowner, is also the guy who commits suicide with his poodle by jumping off the building when Dae Su is finally out of the jail. Do they expect people to not realize it's the same guy with the huge mole or what? Never understood that

-->> hey, You are confusing Oh Dal-Su (jailowner) and Oh Kwnag-rok(leader of anarchist gang and suicidal man). Check out the Recurring Cast in Park's filmography

---

I took out the Oldboy alternatie usage because this page is solely about the movie and it is distracting. The alternative Oldboy meaning should be in a disambiguation page not the Oldboy movie page.

There is no disambig page, so it should go here. But it's just a definition, so it should really go on wiktionary. - Omegatron 00:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

imo the "ant scene" shows a condition of Delusional parasitosis - anyone agree and wants to put that into the main text?

"Ji-tae Yu" is transcribed as "Ji-tae Yoo" on my DVD cover, what's the right spelling? (clem 19:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))

---

the gas was said in the subtitles to be "valium gas" i believe, but it also said it was the same gas as used in the moscow theater? that is listed as Fentanyl... - Omegatron 03:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• probably faulty subtitles; I watched the German dubbed version at the movies and the dub was horrible (eg there are recurring lines and they got translated differently every time), so the translation work might be rather mediocre (clem 18:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))

---

I made some tiny changes in the Oldboy article. I'm very sure that he was not calling his wife for a ride but his daughter. I also delted the womanizing part because the movie never really showed anything to imply he womanized. I also removed the part where the clue was a wrapper. I'm don't remember a wrapper, but the way he found where he was imprisoned was by going to a lot of restaurants and tasting the dumplings. Remember how Mido was crossing out those words on that list? I don't want to step on anyone's shoes, I just wanted to correct what I'm very sure was incorrect. Hope no one is offended. (usni Apr 16 2005)

• Phone call: i think he talked to both his wife and daughter during that conversation. the other guy put the wife on so the daughter wouldnt hear her father drunk?
• Womanizing: yeah i don't remember anything about that either
• Wrapper: he definitely found a little piece of wrapper in one of his dumpling things, which is what helped him narrow it down to "blue dragon" or whatever it said. - Omegatron 02:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

-Phone call: Yes! The other guy was talking to his wife then he put on the daughter for Dae-Su. I haven't seen the movie in a while so I forgot about that. I think just saying "he talked to his daughter" is enough. Tell me if you feel differently about it.

-I'm pretty sure that he systematically went to every Chinese restaurant to taste the dumpling he had been tasting for 15 years. I don't remember any wrapper but I would need to see it again to make sure.

Usni Apr 17, 2005

• "Wrapper": Around 00:35:49 (My version is 1:59:55 total in length), they show Dae-su eating a dumpling in his prison room and pulling a yellow fragment of paper out from his mouth. On the fragment, it says "Blue Dragon". This is the reason why Mi-Do accompanies Dae-su to all of these Chinese restaurants that have "Blue Dragon" in their names.
• Womanizing: Around 00:50:12, Dae-su's friend Joo-hwan says "I don't know all the 260 names of your women's husbands," in response to Dae-su asking, "Is there anyone who hates me this much?" However, it is likely that this is just a joke. —MementoVivere 10:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I felt I had to include a bigger warning because I feel the ending is so critical for the movie that a person needs to be sufficiently warned.

Well I just saw it last week and I'm sure he found a little piece of paper with two words on it, which i believe were "blue dragon" and then systematically went to every chinese restaurant with the words blue dragon in the name. but i could be wrong because of subtitles or something. - Omegatron 22:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

I have watched this film three times and love how the director keeps little secrets. There are still some interesting details not up yet. I will post once I have the time. Cheers. - Zhixiong 03:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His / her distinction

I don't want to turn this into an edit war, but there's two ways to read this sentence

Unable to face the truth, Dae-su has chosen to live a life with Mi-do as his lover in ignorance of their true relationship.

I see the subject as being Mi-do (i.e. Dae-su has chosen to live a life with Mi-do (break) as her lover) rather than seeing Dae-su as the subject (i.e. Dae-su has chosen to live a life (break) with Mi-do as his lover)

Which is grammatically correct, and why? If both are correct, the sentence needs to be reworded so as not to lead to confusion. Sarge Baldy June 29, 2005 22:17 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a war and I like "her" more : ) Avel791 June 30, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

oops sorry; I wasn't aware there's a discussion on that yet; else I prolly wouldn't have reverted it right away; Sarge, I now think both are grammatically correct, I just like "his" better :-) - what about changing it to something like "both have chosen to live as lovers" (yeah, then there's a problem that Mi-Do probably didn't really know what she chose (clem 30 June 2005 07:47 (UTC))

Plot Summary

this is an exceptionally written plot summary, IMHO. whoever wrote this page should take on some of the other movie synopses on wikipedia. Streamless 13:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a good synopsis, but far too long. It should be pared down much more. A huge plot summary with every single little point is just unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. This is essentially a narration of the whole movie, full of spoilers. Nowhere on the website is there a traditional plot summary, which people who have not seen the movie can look at to get an idea of the movie's plot.--68.239.49.202 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Plot Summary May Reveal Too Much

The plot summary seems to follow-up every single major point in the plot that even reveals the ending. No matter how well it is written, the Plot Summary should not reveal the whole story but merely be what the story is about. The time the author took to write the plot summary is laudable and appreciated by the fans of Wikipedia, but this reveals way too much. This, in my belief, kills the very movie and its story-driven action. I think the author of this page should cut the plot summary down to what is sufficient in explaining what the story is about and not give the whole story away. But then again, this is just my opinion.

The Plot Summary does indeed give away the entire film, which it should not. It should be a paragrpah or so, according to WP's film template page. Geoff B 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone cares, but I was googling for a complete plot spoiler and it hit wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised at how well written and complete this one was. I mean, you could argue it's not "encyclopedia-like," but I do appreciate as much information as possible from a wikipedia entry. If you guys DO take it out, however, at least link to a complete plot spoiler afterwards. 164.67.148.161 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I pulled this summary off of Rotten Tomatoes and did some minor editing: The story follows Dae-Su who is locked in a hotel room for 15 years without knowing his captor's motives. When he is finally released, Dae Su finds himself still trapped in a web of conspiracy and strangeness. His own quest for vengeance becomes tied in with romance when he falls for an attractive sushi chef, who may or may not be involved with the bizarre mystery. Not sure how to link the current spoiler-ific summary for those who want it. Any help is appreciated.

Why not put it in the introduction? I'll just do it myself. People need to really start putting three/four sentence synopses in the introduction for movie articles. Ant6n (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Source your claims

"Indeed, upon release, it was proven that Zinda was nearly identical" - source

"A few Indian films are indeed "remakes" of American films, sometimes even copying the entire film nearly line for line" - source

"Sometimes even the biggest Indian superstars like Amitabh Bachchan are cast in such movies which are exact replica of foreign movies." - source

"Oldboy is one of the first instances in which a non-American film has been remade." - this is total BS.

"Another movie from Hong Kong called "The Eye" was supposedly copied to make an Indian movie Naina." - source

"Famous Indian directors like Rakesh Roshan also copied various parts of "ET" to make a hit Indian movie called "Koi Mil Gaya" but he denies any such allegations. Currently he is about to launch a sequel to this called "Krish" which apparently has got some similarities with Matrix Revolutions. Plagiarism is very common in Bollywood industry and it majorly runs on remakes violating copyrights as the returns are not enough to pay for the copyrights." source.

Sources, and plenty of them, need to be found, or a whole load of 'allegedly's need to be dropped into that whole section. I'll give it a couple of days and if it's not changed I'll severely trim it myself. Opinions? Geoff B 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

False Pregnancy

"Eventually, the rumor grew out of proportion until it involved Soo-ah becoming pregnant. It is not clear whether this did in fact occur,"

I just watched the film, and it seems to be pretty clear that Soo-ah wasn't pregnant, but that she believed she was, and it is stated that Dae Su 'got her pregnant with his tongue' or something like that...there doesnt seem to be any lack of clarity as to whether or not she actually did get pregnant, it seems pretty clear to me at least that she *wasn't*, but believed she was.

We don't really have any way of establishing whether she was or not. I think the only info we get is from Woo-jin, and he's hardly likely to admit getting his own sister up the duff and sharing responsibility for her suicide. He prefers to blame Dae-su. Geoff B 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gun

what type of gun was used? 69.137.223.153 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC it was a derringer. Geoff B 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech killer

The Virginia Tech connection merits a section outside "Trivia": there are too many sources. Ichormosquito 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should request protection! This movie could be a target for vandalism.

Ehh... I actually think this section should be deleted. The evidence is pretty flimsy and the "Sky News" citation that claims he watched the film repeatedly (something i haven't read anywhere else) can't even be trusted to get the name of the Virginia Governor correct (calling him Tom instead of Tim)

quoting this article from the CNN website:

There was no apparent link between Cho and "Oldboy" besides the lone photograph among the 28 video clips, 23-page written message and 43 self-portrait photos that he sent to NBC. Cho killed the 32 victims with a handgun and a pistol, not a hammer. He did not seem to reference the film in any of his notes or messages.

that dude held a hammer in one pic, out of 43. gimme a break. the only reason some people see a connection here is that both the dude and the movie are korean.

one day later, the author of the article that is used to back up the statement that there was a connection, wrote:
Of course, we don’t know yet if Mr. Cho ever saw the film “Oldboy,” and even if he did, the film “is not real,” as another reader points out. With Mr. Cho expressing so many other reasons for his shooting spree, it is hardly time to start blaming movies.

unless someone comes up with a really good source, i see no reason to keep the trivia. the actual sources are dubious, and there is no mention of the movie in the article Virginia Tech massacre. number29 05:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it sounds like a massive co-incidence blown out of proportion. Chensiyuan 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The media hysteria, unfounded or not, is widespread enough to be worth a mention. If Wikipedia can't expose the incompetence of the press, what good is it? Ichormosquito 10:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, hence if it is unfounded, it is not worth a mention. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to 'expose the incompetence of the press' number29 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The media hysteria might be unfounded, but the fact there is media hysteria demands a mention. Ichormosquito 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the section be removed from the article, as it is not relevant to the movie itself. And please, do we really need to go to every movie article and put up a section if anybody claimed there was a connection between that movie and some lunatic who may or may not have been influenced by it? Shaolin Samurai 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For your objection's concerning relevance to the movie, see The Catcher in the Rye: Controversy. About your second objection, two points: 1) it wasn't just "anybody" who reported on the connection, but CNN, Sky News and a blog sponsered by The New York Times; and 2) Wikipedia is beholden only to the public interest; there's no reason why an article should be sterilized if the sources check. For the record, I love Oldboy. Ichormosquito 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for "sterilization" of the article, and while "reputable" news sources like CNN have have reported on the connection, the only link between Old Boy and Cho was one picture of him holding a hammer that was vaguely remniscent of an Old Boy poster, making the connection speculation at best. Shaolin Samurai 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Cho had ever watched "Oldboy." chunwook 03:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting: the professor who initially made the connection is now trying to distance himself from it as far away as possible. I still think the media storm is worth mentioning; but in a few weeks, if Sky News's "detectives" fail to turn up anything, I'd like to include the reference you deleted in order to shame Rupert Murdoch. Ichormosquito 08:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please support Oldboy as a Cinema Collaboration of the Week

We really need your help. The page is quite a mess and needs some updating. And please add a "Reaction" page as well as a "production page too.

Needs to be cleaned up

The plot is WAAAY too large (WAY over the average of I think 900 words per movie [with culturally significant movies usually getting more]), the Zinda controversy is stated twice in two different places and neither of them have sources, the box office section has no sources, in fact, the only place WITH sources seems to be how it won different awards. In fact, I'll just list what this article needs.

1] Shorten the plot length 2] Provide sources for Zinda controversy 3] Provide sources or just get rid of the 'open interpretation of ending' section 4] The production section seems vaguely like a trivia section, so please provide sources (and put it into prose) or merge with other parts of the article

This isn't a horrible article, it's not necessarily a bad one, it's just put together wrong and unsourced. 72.200.27.179 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Excessively Detailed Plot

No wonder that the plot is excessively detailed, as it is a copypaste from the IMDB page. The IMDB copyright and conditions of use says this: This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of IMDb.

Is the plot copied illegally?

83.108.42.40 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Or is the IMDB plot copied from here? Lugnuts 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the Manga?

I just read the whole Manga (8 vols.) but the movie is better. The reason of capture and release is not clear in the Manga. Please see the thread "Ending" in the discussion section of the Manga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_Boy_%28manga%29#Ending.3F.3F)

Film noirs?

Not quite sure enough of my French to correct it, but I'm pretty sure that "film" takes the plural - not "noir" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.109.152 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has quite literally been raped

The layout is horrible, and everything about this article is just horrendous. What happened to the last DECENT edit that was added? Why on earth has a musical score been added into the middle of an article and why is everything on single headers? Whoever had the screwed up idea of rewriting or restructuring the article would do best to go away and cry. Shame that in this instance, the "pirahna process" ate this article as live bait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.154.200 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumor of American version?

I heard a rumor that an American adaptation is in the works? If this is true, would it be worth adding something to the article mentioning the adaptation? Pwojdacz (talk)

Poster

Is there a particular consensus as to which poster is used for foreign films, the American poster or the original one? Because most foreign film articles I've seen have the original poster. If no one has any complaints I'll try finding the Korean poster for Oldboy.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no concensus either way, such a change would seem rather arbitrary. Normally I would agree that a Korean poster is more appropraite for a Korean film, but there are certainly others who feel we should be using English-language posters regardless, and Oldboy in particular has had a massive amount of exposure beyond its native shores. PC78 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. The world won't explode if you leave the Korean poster up for a couple of days. Also, as a matter of policy, you're both on 3 reverts each, so one more from either of you will probably get you blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Host (film) had a lot of promotion and exposure oversees as well. That has it's original poster from Korea. And the article originally had the foreign poster as well before you uploaded the American one over it with no discussion. Just because it's an English encyclopedia doesn't mean we need to Americanize all the articles regarding foreign subjects.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Host was far more successful in Korea and much less so overseas than Oldboy, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. No one objected to the change when I made it, and in any case it was me who uploaded the original Korean poster anyway. You said above "If no one has any complaints", and clearly I do; a pity you are so intent on making this change before properly discussing it. PC78 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As it is, it's 2-1 in favor of the foreign poster, and the foreign poster is already more compliant with Wikipedia's official policies on foreign films. And I'm pretty sure Oldboy had a more significant theatrical release and following in Korea than the US. It was #5 on the best-selling Korean films of 2003. Considering the US only gave it a limited release, I don't think it did better here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I moved it back to the American poster until the discussion is reached. Happy?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You asked for opinions in your comment above, then waited all of nine minutes before making the change; would it have killed you to wait 24 hours to see if anyone offered their 2¢? You might even have approached the uploader of the original image (i.e. me), if only as a courtesty. I dunno, maybe I was just narked when I got up this morning, but I log on to see that an image I've uploaded has been tagged for deletion, and when I check the article to see why there wasn't so much as a word in your edit summary (I hadn't noticed your talk page comment at that time). Then when I contested the change by reverting, you just reverted back, even after I'd posted a comment here. I was perfectly open to discussing the matter with you, but you didn't seem to give it a chance, even though you've since been all over the place asking others for their opinion. Screw it though, it's honestly not that important to me, and I've most certainly got better things to do with my Wiki time. I'll put your image back in, tag mine for deletion, then we can all go about our buisness. Does that suit you? PC78 (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't see that this would have caused such a problem. I've uploaded quite a few posters over existing ones, and have had others upload posters over mine in the past.

For the record, I asked the question on the discussion page, and then I looked around at numerous other articles of similar ilk *and* then I checked out MOS, and all of them pointed to using the original poster. Which is when I changed it to it's original poster. And for the record, I just notified the WikiProject and it's coordinators and asked for their opinions in a neutral tone mainly because the Oldboy talk page doesn't seem to get that much traffic and it would have been little more than a back and forth-- my *exact* words to them were "Hi, since you seem to be one of the coordinators of the film WikiProject, I was wondering if you could lend your opinion on a discussion concerning which poster should be used for the article. Thank you." It's not like I rallied my friends or a group of people who would be predisposed one way or another to my particular choice. And in the end, I reverted your image back and waited for a consensus, so I don't see any real different outcome if I had done it differently.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we might have reached a more amicable agreement for one thing, and you might not have felt the need to waste others time with this. It's not so much where we ended up, but how we got there. But honestly, is there any point in dragging this out any further? PC78 (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for acting the way I did.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I also apologise if you felt I was being difficult or unreasonable. PC78 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Image says to use the original theatrical release poster, and Oldboy came out in South Korea long before other territories. PC78, why are you arguing for the English-language poster? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I believe the film's exposure overseas warrants an exception. You yourself originally argued for using English-language posters, IIRC. PC78 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed our discussion for the MOS addition, and this was what I said: "It was a personal deduction based on what I've seen with articles on foreign-language films, but we can discuss it further to ensure consensus." I ultimately never drafted specific wording in the draft, instead writing "original theatrical release poster" to implicitly argue for whatever comes out first. I am not sure if the overseas exposure of Oldboy should make an impact on the type of poster image used. It certainly could be content for the article body, but I don't see why should necessitate an image upgrade. Like CyberGhostface suggested on WT:FILM, if a film performs better in France than in the United States, does this mean we should use the French-language poster? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not relevant to policy discussion, per se, but if you look at it from a sense of visual aesthetics, the Korean poster is far more striking. The U.S. poster, quite frankly, is dull and unattractive. Also, considering this is one of the most famous Korean films ever made, I would think it makes sense to use the original poster, with its Korean lettering. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall the discussion we had, Erik; that part of the MOS was still being discussed when I added the US poster to this article. As I've said before, I'm generally in favour of using an original poster from the film's country of origin, but in this case I deemed it more relevant to use a poster that would be more recognisable to the greater part of our readers. But heck, it's honestly not that important to me either way, to be perfectly honest. This whole discussion is really just a storm in a teacup. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see where the "international recognition" plays a factor in this - even in our articles on the most noted foreign films ever, we generally use the original poster, regardless of which country/language this is. There's also an argument that using the US poster constitutes a bias, not only towards English, but also towards the American release in particular. Aesthetics and box office performance are not compelling arguments in this regard, in my view. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you have reached a real consensus about the poster to be taken. For me it is more appropriate to include the english language poster if the film had a release. The title of the article is Oldboy, not Oldeuboi.--Johnny Freak (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well if you look at Template:Infobox_film#Image it says to use the original theatrical poster and most articles about foreign films that I've seen use the original poster from the country of origin. I don't know if there's been any official policy as to regards to foreign films but that's what I've seen looking at other articles on foreign films (Memories of Murder, The Lives of Others, The Secret in Their Eyes, etc)--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Did Mi-do know she was his daughter?

I've just watched the film and came to this article to better understand this, but it isn't even said here. Right before Woo-jin leaves the penthouse, the tape reproduces Mi-do's saying "you have to know", while having sex with Dae-su, suggesting she already knew it. By the time Woo-jin leaves, he asks Dae-su if they will be able to live knowing about their relationship, which enforces the fact that they both know. But then, if wouldn't make sense that box when she's enprisioned or Dae-su being hypnotized to forget about it. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.188.250 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither knew. During the sex scene, she says, "Ajeossi, it hurts so much. I'm enduring it, you have to know [that]." Before Woo-jin kills himself, he says that he and his sister loved each other knowing about their familial relationship, and asks if Daesu and Mido could have done the same. That's what happens in the original Korean version, without subtitles. Arumdaum (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries vs. movie reviews

People read movies reviews to get an idea as to whether a new movie is worth their money and time to see. Therefore I believe that reviews should never give away any of the surprises that the writer and director intend the viewer to experience -- let alone the ending.

Encyclopedia entries on movies are not reviews. People read them to learn about the movie and what makes it significant. Imagine a review of Bonnie and Clyde that did not mention the ending of the movie and the impact of the final scene! Ditto Henry the Serial Killer. Therefore, I assume someone who comes to Wikipedia is here to learn about the movie in as much detail as possible -- not for a review. In the case of Oldboy that would include revealing who the puppet-master is, why he wants revenge, and the nature of the enigmatic ending.

Forgot to add (71.22.47.232 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Restaurant - Chinese?

The plot synopsis stated that Dae-Su found the 'Chinese' restaurant after specifying that he was fed Mandu (dumplings). Mandu is Korean; is there anything in the movie specifying the restaurant as Chinese? If so it should be changed back, but I'm not entirely sure the Mandu link is appropriate. Googlypoo (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I always assumed it was jiaozi, though other sources do seem to state that it's gun-mandu. I do seem to recall the resturaunt being stated as Chinese, but that could have been the translation. I also seem to recall Chinese characters on the shops he visits, but that could have been Hanja for all I know.--Remurmur (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Daesu refers to it in the film as gunmandu, but I'm pretty sure the restaurants he goes to are Chinese. Chinese restaurants in Korea though are often Koreanized, like Chinese restaurants in America are often Americanized, and serve things like jjajangmyeon, jjamppong, and tangsuyuk, which tend to be perceived as Chinese food in Korea, but often Korean food elsewhere. The style of the restaurants he goes to also seems Chinese. Arumdaum (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of possible NPOV statement.

I removed the following:

It should also be noted that the eating of live octopuses (called sannakji (산낙지) in Korean) as a delicacy exists in East Asia, although it is usually cut, not eaten whole.

as I feel that it is an intentional attempt to mitigate the scenes impact. Given that octopi are treated by scientists globally as 'unofficial vertebrate' given their extremely high intelligence and sensory perception on par with a young human there are entirely different subsets of laws in regards to anything conducted on octopi that may injure or cause distress to it given it's high intellect and sentience. To see a patently absurd attempt at justification would leave the paragraph open to further clarification for context and pointing out that it is illegal in all first world nations to do this for that very reason (ie: to stop people using 'culture' as an excuse for cruelty and bizarre antics. Which is a fair and very valid point.

Rather than trying to balance the POV I feel it is better simply to remove it. The whole 'lolactor prayed for them' is kind of pushing it also. I am open to suggestions on what to do with that. 60.225.64.166 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How is stating that the actor prayed afterwards (he did) or this being common in South Korea (it is) NPOV? Your comments indicate a bias on your part.--24.128.144.231 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be included, as it helps non-Korean viewers have a better understanding of the scene. It's a Korean movie which was mainly intended for a Korean audience, but happened to find popularity around the globe. Vertebrates such as cows, pigs, and sheep are eaten all over the globe. Your personal views on octopi shouldn't remove needed information.

"First world nations," whether referring to the United States and its Cold War allies, or wealthy countries with advanced economies, do not have a common culture or a common system of laws. The consumption of live octopi is legal in South Korea, which falls into the category of both a US Cold War ally and a wealthy country with an advanced economy. I'm actually unsure of whether there is any country which forbids serving live octopus. Its consumption is totally normal. Most of the impact is supposed to come from him stuffing it into his mouth and eating it whole, not the fact that he's consuming a live octopus, which when cut up is pretty normal.

This is from a person who previously lived in Korea, and visited it often, with both parents being Korean. Arumdaum (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Mention of 2013 remake

There's an editor Live to Die that keeps removing the one-liner about the 2013 remake from the lead section. Its pretty standard to include mention of remakes in lead paragraphs of the source movies, see for example The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934 film), Scarface (1932 film), The Italian Job, The Thomas Crown Affair (1968 film) and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Is there any reason why that line keeps getting removed? The editor has also been warned multiple times by a few editors on his talk page regarding his "enthusiasm" in this article and the article about the 2013 remake. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Remake table

Hi, people. Recently Derevation added a table here, in Zinda (film), and in Oldboy (2013 film). I wanna dispute its relevance. The table doesn't is self-explanatory (well, there's only a few names but what they represent?); and even if it was a well-made table what's its relevance at all? Isn't prose preferable in this case? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Gabriel Yuji first of all, remake map has names who played roles of Shinichi Goto from Old Boy Manga (Choi Min-Sik/Sanjay Dutt/Josh Brolin) and actresses who played love interests (Kang Hye-jung/Lara Dutta/Elizabeth Olsen) and character Takaaki Kakinuma are the antagonist played by (Yoo Ji-tae/John Abraham/Sharlto Copley). And the map shows the film chronology plus actors, actresses and the antagonists. And Mr. Yuji is just disputing despite map is for remake. Plus Wanted was also remake of Pokiri it has too character map! Vikramarkudu has also remade in several other languages. And many films so why Yuji is worried for it? Derevation (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you shouldn't have to explain it to me; the table should be self-explanatory per MOS:TABLE. Second, I'm not omniscient to worry about films I even knew that existed. However, you should know that only because other articles have such tables, this shouldn't have. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment The tables should be removed. You can link to the films in the prose, but creating tables to supply the cast information is arbitrary and unnecessary. If readers are interested in the cast of the other films they can read those articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Version Differences

I just saw blu-ray version and noticed they cut out the mice-scene? Does anyone else notice this?

Also, I swear before I saw a difference octopus eating scene, like the octopus was smaller... and looked CG... Andwan0 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a source/reference for this, you can include it in the writeup like how its done in Blade Runner. You can't just put it in based on what you think you are seeing/remembering though. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The mice scene is in the remake. There is no mice scene in the Korean film. Nor are there any different cuts of the film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Final Hypnosis

"Dae-su finds the hypnotist from the prison to erase his knowledge of Mi-do being his daughter, so that they can stay happy together." I suggest rewriting this statement. "Stay happy together" might be misconstrued to mean that they want to be together, when all Dae-su wants is to erase his memory. And why the hell did he track down the hynotist who had caused him so much trouble in the first place? 119.74.93.242 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Remake in the lead

@Zhanzhao: regarding your reversal of my edit, it is true that the 2013 film is a remake, but it is not notable enough to be included in the lead. The article of the movie itself (Oldboy (2013 film)) even states that "The film was a box office bomb; it had one of worst box office performances of Lee's directing career." For example, Total Recall (2012 film) isn't worth mentioning in the lead of Total Recall (1990 film), because the 2012 film "has negative reviews from critics" and isn't notable. Ben-Hur (2016 film), which the lead states "received generally negative reviews and was a box office bomb" is not included in the lead of Ben-Hur (1959 film). Some1 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Oldboy (2003 film" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oldboy (2003 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Oldboy (2003 film until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"One of the greatest films of all time"

Old Boy (2003) is an awesome movie, but the description of it as "one of the greatest films of all time," in the opening paragraph no less, is a problem for the following reasons:

1) Anyone can argue that almost any movie is 'one of the greatest,' so if we're saying this here then it needs to be rooted in solid unambiguous citation.

2) The inline link to List of films considered the best makes no mention of Old Boy (2003).

3) Of the four postscript citations, three of them link to pages that explicitly do not list the "greatest films of all time."

4) The one postscript citation that does claim to list the "greatest films of all time" also includes The Muppet Movie and Pan's Labyrinth among others — these are hardly titles the community has agreed upon.

For these reasons this statement ought to be removed. — Muckapedia (talk) 5^e sept. 2024 9h15 (−4h) 13:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)