This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Film:American This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see lists ofopen tasks andregional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to theguidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by theAmerican cinema task force. United StatesLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited 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 Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

The article states that the budget for the movie was $134.9 million, which seems highly unlikely given its independent character and the fact that no A-list movie stars appear in it (Frances McDormand is an actor, not really a movie star). In addition, I haven't found any sources to support this information. The same goes for the purported box office gross of $89 million.Iggy Ax (talk)09:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, I thought our jobs as editors was to find information and cite it, not curate it or judge whether we think it's accurate or not.WhiskeyFoxtrot7 (talk)01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there was areliable citation for the budget, then it should certainly be used. But I'd be surprised if a reliable citation for a figure of around $135million can be found. As the comment above says, that figure is way out of line with the nature and cast of the film. Looking at the largest grossing films of 2022, some have budgets of $150mn or a bit more but they are much larger and more complex productions and are making many hundred of millions of dollars at the box office. I find it impossible to believe that any studio would spend $135mn on a film with the likely takings of this film given its subject matter and cast. Editors are entitled to ask themselves, is what someone has added even feasible?Sbishop (talk)09:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made two months ago. However, the edit the OP was writing about isthis one and it was removedhere andhere. Nothing else to see here.Mike Allen16:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring against two editors, Debressor and myself, in order to force your version of the edit into the article. If you incapable to reducing the size of your overlong plot summary, then it can be replaced readily with the old plot summary. No further reverts without Talk page. Your plot summary is much too long and is currently in violation of Wikpedia plot summary guidelines and copyright restrictions.ErnestKrause (talk)17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so bothered about "forcing" my edits into the plot summary - I agreed that my summary needed condensation. The issue here is that instead of making any effort to condense, unnecessary details continue to be added. Wikipedia plot summary guidelines also state that the summary needs to avoid storytelling, and give a general overview rather than describe scenes. The first paragraph you have suggested is in violation of both those guidelines - it describes a scene as it happens, and attempts to "re-create the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary" (directly fromWP: How to write a plot summary). My suggested edits (that you just undid) brought the word count down to 799. Right now it's at 814.

The old plot summary contains factual and grammatical inaccuracies, and contains little information about the actual events in the film.Ajack15 (talk)18:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it down to 759 words. I'm not sure what else should be deleted, but I'm open to everything.

"In 2010, the women of an anonymousMennonite colony discover that the men of the colony had been using cow tranquilizer to subdue andrape the women and girls of the colony. After the attackers are caught, they are arrested and imprisoned. Most of the men of the colony travel to oversee the bail of the attackers, leaving the women by themselves for two days to determine how they will proceed. They hold a plebiscite to decide what will be done - whether they will stay and do nothing, stay and fight, or leave.

The vote is tied between fighting and leaving. Nine of the colony's women - Salome, Ona, Mariche, Agata, Greta, Mejal, Autje, Nietje, and "Scarface" Janz - band together at a local hayloft to come to a final decision, though Scarface, a "do-nothing" woman, leaves the meeting early after becoming disillusioned with the discussion. August, the colony's schoolteacher and one of two remaining men, joins the women to record the meeting, as none of the women have been taught to read or write. The second man is Melvin, atransgender man who, after being raped,doesn't speak, except to the young children. Therefore, he is left in charge of watching over them, as well as warning the women of any outside developments.

Salome, having just returned from a two day trip to gather antibiotics for her four year old daughter who was assaulted, remains adamant on staying and fighting, an opinion shared by Mejal. Ona, who is pregnant (the result of a rape), also suggests that they stay and, after winning the fight, create a new set of rules for the colony that would give the women more power. Mariche, Greta’s daughter and Autje’s mother, disagrees, believing that forgiving the men is the only viable option. To quell the rising conflict, Ona suggests that August create one document stating the pros and cons of leaving, and another document stating the pros and cons of staying.

The meeting is adjourned for lunch. During the break, it is revealed that August is the son of an excommunicated family, and was recently granted permission to return so that he could be a teacher to the boys of the colony. He and Ona were good friends as children, and he has had feelings for her since.

When a truck drives by to count the women for the 2010census, they learn that Klaas, Mariche's abusive husband, is returning in the evening to collect more bail money. The meeting continues with renewed passion. Ona and Mejal change their minds, deciding that leaving is the better option. Salome remains insistent upon fighting, angrily confessing that she would rather kill the men than put her daughter in further harm's way. However, she changes her opinion after being reminded by Agata, her and Ona's mother, of the principles of their faith. The only remaining unconvinced member is Mariche, causing a bitter argument to ensue between her and the rest of the women, during which it is revealed that she forgave her husband's abuse at the urging of Greta. After Greta apologizes for her former behavior, Mariche agrees to leave.

Their reasons for leaving are transcribed by August: to ensure the safety of their children, to be steadfast in their faith, and to have the freedom of thought. They decide that they will try to take boys 15 years and younger with them, but they will not force any boy over the age of 12. They prepare to leave at sunrise, concealing their plans from Klaas. August, at Ona's behest, posts the documents stating the pros and cons of leaving and staying on the walls of the hayloft as an artifact of the women's time in the colony. He also declares his love to Ona, and gives her a map that the women will use to guide their path.

Before they can leave, Melvin informs Salome that her teenaged son Aaron has fled and hidden. He is found by Salome, but is unable to be convinced to leave in enough time. Salome, breaking the rules of their departure, tranquilizes him, forcing him to leave with them. She reveals this only to August, who understands. He asks her to look after Ona, and, in turn, she asks him to teach the boys properly, so as to prevent any further violence. She joins the rest of the colony as they begin to leave.

In an epilogue, it is revealed through narration that the story is being told by one of the women to Ona's infant child."

Ajack15 (talk)19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors, Debressor and another have started to make trims which are an improvement. Its best to keep the article at about 700 words, and I'm in agreement with Debressor that the introductory scene is significant for the main scenes of the film.ErnestKrause (talk)23:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the introductory scene in detail is more of a copyright violation than anything I've written. I won't change it, but keeping it as it is now is a contradiction to your argument and a hindrance to the plot summary in general. It is redundant, and a violation ofWP: How to write a plot summary. Right now the summary is at 816 words, and I'm trying to make edits that put it at 759. I see now that you have no interest in this - that's fine. I won't make anymore major edits. But I'm going to continue fixing minor errors (spelling, grammatical, etc.). If I change anything minor that either you or Debressor add in, it is not because I'm trying to edit war with you or them. I have no malicious intent here.Ajack15 (talk)02:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scene where she is the girl Nettie, and scenes where he is the transgender young man Melvin, who is still referred to as Nettie by at least one of the women. To avoid going into detail I used "Nettie/Melvin", both in the plot as in the cast list. If anybody has a better suggestion , please write here.Debresser (talk)14:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is fine for that. The cast list is only for the name they are officially credited as in end credits. I haven’t seen the film but that part in the plot was added in yesterday by an editorhere.Mike Allen15:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that in cases in which it's necessary to include a trans person's deadname, it should always come after the chosen name in a slashed set.2600:1007:B0A6:B843:F4A3:F6F3:FDF6:CDC7 (talk)04:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser andSbishop: It looks like there a plot length issues in this article which need some help. It seems that the writer of the expansions has been using information from possibly reading either the 2018 book version of the film or the Wikipedia article about that book upon which it is based in order to pad the plot section with added details. If either or both of you can shorten the article down to 700 words or something like that, then I'll try to support your edits. There's seems to be just too much detail at present.ErnestKrause (talk)16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit: I think we can delete the sentence, "Their reasons for leaving are transcribed by August: to ensure the safety of their children, to be steadfast in their faith, and to have the freedom of thought." This is established in former paragraphs and seems unnecessary. Also, I'd like to be referred to by name please. All edits I've made have come from having watched the film multiple times.Ajack15 (talk)18:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the issue to shorten the plot section to 700 words; its getting closer now.ErnestKrause (talk)01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven hundred is not biblically ordained. I think the plot section looks good, even if it is slightly over 700 words.Debresser (talk)01:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite MGM shifting fromUniversal Pictures toWarner Bros. Pictures, Universal handled the international distribution rights to this film.^[1]2607:FEA8:761B:C900:28CB:2072:E458:A040 (talk)16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have a convention around how nationalities are represented with works originating in another country? This film is based on a Canadian novel. In addition, the screenwriter/director was Canadian. The rights were purchased by an American and it was financed by Americans, granted. But I note that when a Shakespearian work is produced by an American firm, it isn't called an American drama in Wikipedia.

Suggested edit - remove the word "American" from the first line. It is already clear from the info box. Or add "Canadian" before the names of the director and original author.NRGized (talk)17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too had a reservation about the assumption that the location was "American". The stellar problem is the use of the Southern Cross as a navigation feature. The Southern Cross is not visible above the equator, so the colony couldn't have been in North America. I was thinking South Africa, but I didn't see any person of color... a bit weird in a South African context. A Bolivian setting makes sense of the Southern Cross but not in other ways: the characters spoke American English and were all very pale for Bolivians. Perhaps the screenwriter wanted to emphasize the universality of the women's dilemma... or knows nothing of celestial navigation?172.10.184.208 (talk)01:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles