Talk:The Imitation Game

Synopsis directly lifted from press release

Is it commonplace to copy/paste the synopsis of a film directly from the press release? I'm not entirely sure how to get started, but the oblique reference to "a now outdated criminal offence" seems unnecessarily vague consider the homosexuality of Alan Turing is commented on in the rest of the article, and considering the phrasing is exactly that in the publicized material linked to. Hpgross (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Argument over which teaser poster to use

The following is copying from here.

The one with Cumberbatch's mug is a CHARACTER POSTER which means that all the principal cast will have one. Are you also going to change it when they release Keira Knightley's character poster? She's co-lead in the billing. OF COURSE NOT. The teaser poster should be the primary poster until an official theatrical poster is released. From the official twitter account of the film the poster is categorized as a CHARACTER POSTER: https://twitter.com/ImitationGame/status/515198380138430464 Porsche Mom (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Who says Knightley will get one? Fact is, the Cumberbatch poster is the one used by all the major outlets as the primary promotional image at this time, and that's the image that should be used here. Film Fan 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that it's called by the official Twitter account as a character poster automatically suggest that it's one of the many. This is common knowledge with posters. And the fact that other outlets use the one with Cumberbatch's mug shouldn't be an indicator that Wiki should do the same. The teaser poster or the theatrical poster (not yet released) should be the one used not a character poster where there are sure to be many versions released int he future.Porsche Mom (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The poster with Cumberbun's mug is the current teaser poster. You can make assumptions all day about possible other character posters maybe coming up, but that doesn't always happen and sometimes a "character poster" is more than a character poster. This is one of those cases. You have no argument till I see a poster of Knightley. Film Fan 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"The poster with Cumberbun's mug is the current teaser poster." -Film Fan

NO it's not, per official film account, this one (bombe machine, Cumberbatch's back) is the one categorized as an "international teaser poster" https://twitter.com/ImitationGame/status/512665249699213312. And the one with Cumberbatch's mug, is a mere character poster, again, from official twitter account https://twitter.com/ImitationGame/status/515198380138430464. You can make assumptions and wrong descriptions all you want, but from these official statements, the one with the bombe machine with Cumberbatch's back is the international teaser poster and should be used for the article.Porsche Mom (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is not a WP:RS, plus the fact that the first one is a teaser poster doesn't mean that the second one isn't also. It's common practice for there to be more than one teaser poster before the main poster. And the second one is the one currently used to promote the film, so that should be the one used at Wikipedia, too. Why is there a problem here? Film Fan 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And the second one is the one currently used to promote the film. -Film Fan

Oh really? Who says? You?

Oh, I see. Don't consider the official, verified Twitter account of the film as a reliable source? Well then, here's The Telegraph description of the character poster (adds up to the official, verified Twitter description) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11120975/Benedict-Cumberbatch-in-The-Imitation-Game-exclusive-poster.html and Empire coverage of the teaser poster (surprise! also adds up to the official, verified Twitter description) http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=42190. Unless a theatrical poster is unveiled anytime soon, the primary image should be the teaser poster and not a mere character poster.Porsche Mom (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, here's Keira Knightley's own character poster (http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/news/celebrity/2014/10/06/keira-knightley-the-imitation-game-poster-exclusive?metaOverrideBlob=1271401) I do wonder when they'll release Matthew Goode's, Mark Strong's, etc. :)Porsche Mom (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You want to sort out how you converse with others, pal. Film Fan 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Porsche Mom (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So, we have another disagreement over which poster to use. The UK theatrical poster has been released and should be the poster used since this is a primarily British film. International posters should only be used when country-specific posters are unavailable -- not to mention the clear preference for theatrical posters with credits over teaser posters. We're wasting breath over a cut-and-dry sitation here. Film Fan 01:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you research first, this was produced and financed by Black Bear Pictures (http://blackbearpictures.com/), an American production company based in New York. The producers of the film are all American (Schwartzman, Grossman, OStrowsky). The below-the-line crew are Tyldum (Norway), Goldenberg (US), Desplat (France), Faura (Spain), etc. The cast may be primarily British because it's British-set film and is a British story but that doesn't make it a solely British film. Heck, the screenwriter is even American (Graham Moore). It's not just about the cast. And if you want official source that it's a US/UK film and not just a UK one just check the film's profiles in festivals like this one at TIFF (http://www.tiff.net/festivals/thefestival/programmes/specialpresentations/the-imitation-game) See? US ~and UK. The poster should be representative and inclusive of that. Thus, the international teaser poster should be used.Porsche Mom (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I did the research. It's still primarily British. And a teaser poster should never be used over a theatrical poster with credits. Film Fan 03:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, if you need additional opinions about the poster, you can post a notice at WT:FILM. Other editors can also weigh in about the film's nationality; there have been quite a few nationality discussions in the past with other films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How can you possibly say it's still a primarily British film when the filmmakers are Americans? When it is presented at festivals and screenings as a US and UK production? The screenwriter is American too. As long as they haven't released a theatrical international poster, the international teaser poster should be used. No need to use a country-specific poster, theatrical or otherwise. We should be consistent in these things. Let's just wait for the international theatrical poster. It will come out soon enough.Porsche Mom (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The FUR states that the purpose of the poster is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." That means we include a poster because films can often share titles and in an international film market where titles are often translated, the artwork can often be very useful for identifying a film. Bearing this in mind, if the artwork of one poster is more widely used than the other globally then that is the one we should use i.e. what does the poster look like in Australia? France? If we can't ascertain the answer to that question, or if there is roughly an even split, I would say that due to the film's strong British associations (Cumberbatch, Knightley, Enigma itself) the British poster would be the default choice. Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Any comments added by Porsche Mom can be disregarded if one wishes as they are a now-blocked sock of Fairyspit.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong date for UK premiere?

In the info box at the right, the United Kingdom release date is listed as "November 14, 2014". Not sure where that information comes from, but it's not from that reference link, which only mentions the U.S. release of November 21. The actual London date is the day after tomorrow, Wednesday, October 8th -- which I learned from a family member of one of the producers, who is now in England to attend the event (yes, I know; that's "original research", which is not allowed), but it is also in this press release from BFI: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/announcements/imitation-game-will-open-58th-bfi-london-film-festival. Maybe someone who knows how to fix this (I don't) can do it? 71.204.84.204 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's just the European premiere for the London Film Festival. It will not open wide in cinemas until November 14 in the UK.180.191.69.231 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah! That would explain it. Thanks.71.204.84.204 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Harriet Lucas article

Do we really need the claim that the film is allegedly "downplaying and erasure of Alan Turing's homosexuality"? Since it's entirely clear that much of the film is about his homosexuality, this statement comes over as rather ridiculous. The whole article is wildly over top - even complaining about the fact that it shows him running mathathons (which he did) as if it were some sort of slur against his gayness (!!!!) It's true that the author uses the word "erased" ("It is simply not good enough to argue that, since it is a “drama”, the real Turing can be erased.") but even this article does not say his homosexuality is being erased. I rather doubt this single silly piece counts as "controversy", and certainly think the language should toned down. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! We plan to see the movie because of the cracking of the German Enigma. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Imitation Game as a thriller

There have been some issues regarding the genre of the film. The film is being reviewed, described and classified as a thriller. This is a list of some of the evidence pertaining to the matter of its genre:

• Odeon Cinemas classifiying it as a thriller

http://www.odeon.co.uk/films/the_imitation_game/15262/

• it's an undeniable pleasure to dig into a crackling spy thriller"

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-imitation-game-20141126

• 'The Imitation Game' review: turning Alan Turing's life into a code-breaking thriller

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/21/7259505/the-imitation-game-review-turning-alan-turing-wwii-thriller

• The Weinstein Co.'s period thriller The Imitation Game, which opens Nov. 28, tells the story of Turing, and one of the film's biggest challenges was re-creating Turing's machine.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/oscars-how-imitation-game-team-752054

• The Imitation Game review – an engrossing and poignant thriller

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/16/the-imitation-game-review-engrossing-thriller-benedict-cumberbatch

Hope this makes the genre issue clearer. Babylove0306 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Historical accuracy - Military Police involvement depicted

I have not yet seen the film but I query the historical accuracy of still pictures I have seen of Cumberbatch as Turing being manhandled by two uniformed Royal Military Police soldiers. Turing's arrest for gross indecency occurred in peacetime when he was working in a civilian (university) context, and his case was investigated by civil police local to his home. The RMP would have had no jurisdiction over civilians off military premises, his case was investigated under civilian criminal law, not military law. (Turing's only period formally subject to military discipline was his brief part-time WWII service in the Buckinghamshire Home Guard which ended when he was disciplined for failing to attend parade after he had mastered rifle training and it transpired there were irregularities in his enrolment.)Cloptonson (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice this in the film but there are also scenes where he is manhandled in Bletchley Park as part of the made-up nonsense about how the narrow-minded commander was trying to shut down his one-man machine decryption effort. The film is best enjoyed by those who know nothing about Alan Turing, nothing about Bletchley Park, nothing about collaboration and how progress is really made in science and engineering and mathematics, nothing about cryptography, nothing about the uses of Ultra intelligence, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best if you watch the film first, before picking holes in it. When you get round to seeing it, try to remember it is as fictional as U-571 (film), although at least the Americans don't claim to have broken Enigma in this one. We now have an inaccuracy section (although poorly written), which I suppose may be of use in educating those who believe the film is some form of democracy. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The film is not as fictional as a James Bond movie adapted from an Ian Fleming novel of its same title.
[ re U-571 (film) and the capture of an Enigma Machine: England had delivered into its hands an Enigma machine on 16th August 1939.]

This movie, The Imitation Game, is a cinema replication of the single mental effort that even Eisenhower acknowledged closely saved the victory of WW2 for the Allies.

If there is a conflict of genre and people are concerned about authenticity in a film about British war effort prestige when in reality the genre is something that might be transferred to an American Lana Turner melodrama ( there are queers in Peyton Place ! ), User:SchroCat's comment about picking holes could be read to be defending a film that its creators only had a vague idea ( after deciphering Whitehall missives from the Minister for Culture re the venture ) of what it was supposed to be.

I only saw the trailer, repeated as an advertisement seemingly everywhere. It seemed to be made up of actors who didn't know what should be kept the more glacial, inexpressive and moist — their eyes, their lips and/or various other parts of the anatomy their costumes prohibited a regard.---Laurencebeck (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The film depicts real people and starts with the words "Based on a true story". Therefore it deserves to be evaluated as such. Our articles on these types of films usually have a section pointing out all the historical inaccuracies, just as U-571 (film) does and Argo (2012 film) does and so forth. So this one should too. The shame of it all is that Alan Turing really did accomplish immensely great things (I am in the computer field and knew about Turing Machines before Ultra or Bletchley Park ever became public) and he really was treated unconscionably by the British government and society, and you really could make a great story out of his life, without distorting it or what he did so badly. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not said it shouldn't be there, I've just said it's poorly written. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

After reading Alan Hodges biography (which is the citation source for all the statements below) as well as other articles/books about Bletchley Park, I was struck by the number of omissions, juxtapositions of dates and people, and clear distortions that were presented in the film. Joan Clark did not answer an ad (or complete a cross word puzzle)to join the staff at Bletchly Park. She was recommended by her mathematics professors at Cambridge (as well as Oxford and the University of London) where she had established a sizable reputation for her skill at deciphering and math theory. The scene where she arrives late and is then subjected to condescension from the room monitor never happened. The heads of Bletchley Park (including Eddiston) actively recruited Alan Turing and were delighted when he accepted a position. Alan Turing earned a PhD at Princeton, toured the computer research departments at Bell labs in New Jersey and visited the ciphering " "Enigma bombe assembly line" at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. These would have had a formidable impact on his future research (particularly in computer science) and work but this is not even mentioned in the movie. There is no mention of the Cambridge Five "spy ring" which sent both the British and American intelligence networks into a paranoid frenzy of witch hunts looking for new espionage operatives. The Soviet operatives were all undergraduates together at Cambridge and two of them were homosexuals which likely played a role in the police double checking any case related to anyone with such a connection as well as his security clearance being pulled after his arrest. The film shows Turing and his colleagues openly conversing about their top secret work as they left the building and out the gate as well as in a pub. This would have resulted in extremely serious consequences in real life. Anyone running through the security gate as shown in the film would likely have been shot and the soldiers who shot them would have been decorated for doing so. Turing worked in Hut 6 (and then 8) which was primarily concerned with intercepting and breaking naval codes (U boat traffic) and thus made a significant contribution to the British War effort in what he achieved there. The German intercepts that had a bearing on the Air War (Battle of Britain), D Day Invasion of France, and/or information sent to Russia) came from another section at Bletchley Park. Alan Turing did not singlehandedly shorten the war by two years. He helped keep Britain in the war. Russian soldiers (and later American, British, Canadian and other allies fought and defeated Nazism and it was they who "won the war" (that and Hitler's repeatedly meddling). Had the war gone on any longer in Europe, atomic weapons would have ended the war there. Turing worked by himself for the first six months and then gradually took Alexander, Clark and others on board. There was never any "power struggle" between himself and Alexander or transfer of power/head of the department He was the head of the department from the get go. The scientists at Bletchley Park had no say in what was done with the information they sent on to Churchill and his War Council. Churchill made these decisions based on data and projections received from a number of sources including Bletchley Park. Churchill was only reticent about sharing intelligence with Stalin towards the end of the war. In the early years, Churchill (and later Roosevelt) had keeping Russia in the war as one of his top priorities. Churchill and associates sent numerous warnings about Hitler's intentions to attack the Soviet Union in the Spring of 1941 and they were ignored. The Soviets need have only looked at a map to see what German intentions were prior to launching their double pincher envelopment at Stalingrad. The idea that the British Intelligence agencies would knowingly place a Soviet operative at Bletchley Park so he could "keep Stalin informed" is absurd. "There was no sudden "Eureka" revelation in a bar that prompted Turing to run back to the lab (right through the security gate) to break the Enigma Code. The revelation that a German key operator was repeatedly keying in each morning with his girl friend's name and that others were not bothering to move their rotors each morning in the Enigma machines they were using, came in other sections of Benchley Park. In the film, Turing is shown building and then tinkering with his Turing Machine which he names Chritopher. He is then shown breaking the Enigma code. The "Turing Machine" was a mathematical term used by a math professor reviewing one of Turing's papers in the 1930's. The "bombe" that broke Enigma was built (based on the design of the Polish bombes that preceded it) and used elsewhere in Bletchley Park. The machine conceived by Turing was used to pare down contradictory codes and eliminate them so the real codes could be deciphered by humans. It only had one math function. It did not qualify as a computer...let alone a digital computer. Turing was not a machinist or an engineer. It is unlikely that he would have been allowed near any of the machines at Bletchley Hall which would have cost an extraordinary amount of money, generated huge amounts of heat, and were tape fed by long suffering female auxiliary workers who grew to hate working in the noisy, hot rooms. Had he tried to build such a bombe in his private flat, its weight would have collapsed the floor boards. 68.13.45.29 (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: WP:TL;DR - Don't mean to sound like a dick but posting an edit request that's "short & to the point" is preferred over one gigantic paragraph, So If you could post a much shorter paragraph that'd be grand. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

68.13.45.29 is generally correct. Some of 68.13.45.29's major items are already listed in the 'stated points' list that I added to the "Controversy and historical accuracy" section of the article. That list should be a lot longer, but other editors have been trying to minimize what's already there. And my attempts to characterize these distortions as 'major' in the lead of the article have also been watered down by other editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

--Who says the book is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Andrew Hodges biography is a careful work of scholarship that fits in with other serious histories of Bletchley Park, mathematics, the development of computers, etc. Hodges also updates the work for any clarifications, omissions, further historical discoveries, etc. in later editions of the book and on his website. The film's narrative details are not just contradicted by the Hodges biography but by many other sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I was present for a number of conversations when the biography came out, among people who had known Turning, including his sole graduate student, and there were no serious objections to his account. (There was some discussion of his conclusion about Turing’s death, and his disagreement with Turning’s mother’s belief; I don’t recall anyone agreeing with Turing’s mother, but certainty on the point was naturally elusive.)

—FlashSheridan (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

Alex Lawther has a wikipedia now: Here

Could we link his page to his name in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.69.66 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Melcous (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening words of article

The first sentence of the lead previously said the movie is "about" Turing. This was changed to "inspired by". I reverted it and it was changed again, so I'm here to seek consensus. To me, "inspired by" sounds like something that is not designed to tell a story about him, but is something that his life, or even just one of his works or thoughts, gave some idea or creative spark to, but is overall a fictional storyline, It's quite possible a movie could be inspired by someone who is not even mentioned, named or talked about in that movie. I get that there are plenty of debates over how *accurately* the movie portrays Turing's atory, and these are covered in detail later in the article. But it seems pretty clear that the movie is "about him" - he is the main character and the storyline is based on three major periods of his life. I would argue the opening line should be changed back to just simply saying that it is about him, and then let the later sections about how correct the details are speak for themselves. Melcous (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should be "about", since the film purports to be a "based on a true story" telling of key periods of Turing's life. The fact that so much of it is invented or wrong can be dealt with separately, as Melcous says. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I take your point about the ambiguity of my change to “inspired by,” and would happily settle for a more accurate phrase. But “about” isn’t it, and I don’t think there are actually any debates about whether the movie is accurate—it simply isn’t. The author of Turing’s biography seems to have gone conspicuously silent, according to one of the articles cited in the “Inaccuracy” section, and it’s quite troubling that none of the editors of this article had cited the biography until I made the correction.

The film is about the head of the entire decryption project, who single-handedly saves it by an appeal to Churchill, and then fires inferior intellects and hires Joan Clarke, who is his mathematical superior. He is simultaneously but inconsistently a friendless quasi-autistic lone genius, and also a cowardly traitor. I don’t know who that is, if anyone, but it is uncontroversially not Alan Turing, whatever publicists might claim. I think any claim to the contrary needs specific citations to Hodges. (I’ve already cited pp. 272–3 about the friendlessness claim.)

I do have to admit to a considerable conflict of interest, since claiming that the film is about the historical Alan Turing, rather than being a political parable about friendlessness and bullying, implicitly denies the existence of my graduate-school supervisor and insults my grand-supervisor.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you are overthinking this. You have chosen some of the details of the film (head of project, appeal to Churchill etc) and said the movie is "about"a person who does tthose. But I could just as easily (and I would suggest more broadly accurately) say the film is clearly "about" a character named Alan Turing, who is a mathematician and cryptologist, works at Bletchley Park during WWII to crack Enigma, is homosexual, is later arrested on charges relating to that etc etc. Obviously most films based on historical people dramatise events, and unfortunately often include inaccurate details, but I do not think that changes those films from being "about" that person. So I would still suggest changing the opening line back and allowing the later sections on inaccuracies and details to explain how closely (or not) the film captures the real person it is seeking to portray.

My alternate suggestion (less preferable as it starts to gets wordy and opens potential dispute about the words used) would be something like "The Imitation Game is a 2014 histoical thriller film that dramatises events in the life of Alan Turing ...". Melcous (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would go for "The Imitation Game is a 2014 historical thriller film that is loosely based on the life of Alan Turing ..." and then omit the "loosely based on the biography Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges" at the end of the first paragraph. As for FlashSheridan's "quite troubling" remark, I didn't include any direct sourcing to the Hodges biography because that opens it up for OR/SYNTH charges, whereas sourcing to published critiques of the film's accuracy (which in turn are often based on Hodges' book) cannot be denied. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Surely "loosely based" start to get into POV/OR territory? The article is about the movie, so I just had a quick look at how the sources/reviews cited in the article introduce the movie and here's what they say:

• NY times - dramatises the story of
• Deadline - biopic
• Variety - biopic about
• First Showing - about
• Telegraph - biopic
• NT observer - encapsulation of the story of
• NY post - frames the life of
• Film.com - looks at Turing's life
• time.com - biopic
• NY times - about
• guardian - story of
• bbd - tells the story of
• timeout.com - key episodes in the life of
• NY Books - rendering of the story
• slate - biopic

(Sorry for so many links, but didn't want to be accused of cherry picking. Those are all the ones I can find that introduce the movie in the same kind of way this article does, includes those that question the accuracy of details). So it seems to me if we can't agree on our own wording, we should use that of the sources, and that either means 1. putting in "biopic" about/on/of, 2. something like "tells the story of" or 3. going back to "about", citing one of more of the sources for the wording if necessary. Melcous (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasted Time R: A fair point about OR/SYNTH, so given my CoI, I will try to restrict myself to notable sources. Melcous: An impressive list of links, but I don’t think uninformed phrasing trumps reputable conclusions from sources who have actually read the biography. E.g., from those cited in the Inaccuracies section: “a bizarre departure from the historical record” (New York Review of Books), and “misrepresenting the very nature of Turing’s work at Bletchley Park” (Slate). Mr Hodges, of course, is avoiding comment on the issue, as noted in NYRB, which is understandable given his position, but regrettable nonetheless.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the dispute over historical accuracy, but we are talking about the opening sentence of an article about a movie, and you are saying that reviews of that movie published in reliable sources are not acceptable for citing the main topic of what that movie is "about"?! We're not talking about conclusions here, we are talking about a simple phrase of introduction. The quote you've cited from NY Review "a bizarre departure" is a conclusion - the introductory words about the movie in that article (as I've linked above) say that it is a "rendering of the story" (of Turing); the Slate article introduces the movie as a "biopic" with Turing as its "subject". Like those reviews, this article goes on to make conclusions about how historically accurate the movie is, but what we are discussing here is the opening wording of the article introducing the movie. (And I don't think you can really argue that unless you have read the biography you cannot make a statement on what the movie is about - this article is about the movie, not history, not the book, not the man Alan Turing).

I can't see how it can be disputed that the movie is "about Alan Turing". Whether it does a good job of being accurately about Alan Turing is an entirely separate question. I honestly can't see why this is controversial and why we are spending so much time on this. Wasted Time agreed back at this beginning of the discussion with using the simple phrasing "about", and we've all agreed that the current "inspired by" is not correct, so at this point I'd like to just make that one simple change and leave this discussion there because I'm not sure it can get any more productive. Please? Melcous (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still okay with just "about" in the opening sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

Marian Rejewski is the one who cracked the Enigma and not Alan Turing. 116.212.253.40 (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. True, but Rejewski is not whom this film is about. Are you making an edit request here on Wikipedia? or are you asking something of the filmmakers? Cannolis (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the request was to include a mention of Marian Rejewski in the historical inaccuracies part of the article. That section previously talked about the contribution of Polish cryptographers, but I have expanded it a bit and included Rejewski by name. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article is not precisely correct, it states, "Turing was a key figure in cracking Nazi Germany's Enigma Code." The article on Marian Rejewski, and Enigma Machine both state that the Enigma Code was cracked in 1932.Easeltine (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Both are right. Cryptanalysis of the Enigma machine had to be done over and over again, as the Germans changed procedures, added rotors, etc. Progress would be followed by setbacks which would require new methods to overcome. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The section entitled "Historical Accuracy" looks good to me, including the last sentence, "The building of the British machine itself was led by Harold Keen.[91]" It has been noted that this is a movie, not a documentary. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of claim

From the article:

In actuality, the machine was widely known as the Bombe. It was originally designed in 1938 by Marian Rejewski, who along with other Polish cryptographers had successes in decrypting Enigma messages during the 1930s. They were then blocked by complexities resulting from changes in German equipment and procedures. The machine was redesigned and made effective again by Turing (with contributions from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) during 1939 and 1940. The building of the British machine itself was led by Harold Keen.[with 2 supporting references]

I'm not sure what the references are supposedly supporting but neither mention Marian Rejewski nor his bombi. Indeed the paragraph is incorrect on a number of levels.

• Marian Rejewski indeed designed a bombe (bomba in Polish). However, his bombe did a different job and worked a different way from the Turing/Welchman bombe.
• Rejewski's bombe exploited the 'double indicator' used on early German messages and merely searched for rotor positions where the first three letters of the message decrypted to the same three letters as the fourth to sixth letters.
• Rejewski's bombe was not blocked by complexities. His bombe was still perfectly viable when the Germans increased the number of rotors from three to five. It is just that the Poles would require sixty of them instead of the six that they had. They simply could not afford the extra fifty-four either in terms of money or time.
• When Turing was considering his mechanised approach, he was employing a different exploit that would narrow the possible settings down far more than Rejewski's bombe did. Rejewski's bombe design became non viable on the 1st May 1940 when the Germans abolished the double indicator, though Turing was unaware that this was going to happen. It is quite likely that Turing drew on some of Rejewski's ideas, but because his bombe used a completely different exploit it also had to use a different design.
• The logic of Rejewski's bombe and Turing's bombe were effectively reversed. Rejewski's bombe searched for machine settings where the double indicator encryption decrypted to the same three letters. Turing's bombe was designed to detect contradictions between the settings and particular features of a number of received massages and eliminate those settings that could not produce those features.

31.48.73.38 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Great comments; you seem very knowledgeable. Consider the following info when I go to your TALK page: "This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address." You should be an 'editor' not just an IP user. Right? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've revised the description somewhat to address the IP's objections. But bear in mind that the point here is not to describe in any detail what really did happen; we have Bombe and Bomba (cryptography) and so on for that. The point for this article is to make clear that what this movie portrays is definitely not what happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Good reword. The Polish bombi were not totally blocked by the increase in the number of rotors. They could still decrypt a days messages provided the rotors in use were I, II and III (in any order). However, given your observation on the purpose of the article, it's not worth getting excited over. 31.48.73.38 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The article remains wrong about this. First, the Bombe machine was not designed by Marian Rejewski. The Bombe machines did not have a technical legacy drawn from the Bomba machines. None. The legacy was purely spiritual. Second, the first Bletchley Park Bombe machine was called Victory. Whoever wrote this up has rather confused the facts.144.124.228.28 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the forest for the trees. The film posits that nobody had ever thought of using an electromechanical machine to break Enigma before Turing, and that the incapable-of-working-with-others Turing was the first person ever imaginative enough to actually start doing so, which of course he had to do alone, all the while being bitterly resented by all his fellow codebreakers who were sticking with their pencil and paper and chalkboards and all the while so enraging his commanding officer that the officer did everything he could to get in Turing's way and stop the machine effort. So the purpose of this entry in this article is not to give every detail about what did happen, but simply give enough details to make clear that the film's depiction is pure rubbish from beginning to end. Starting with the fact that not only was Turing not the first person to think of an electromechanical solution, the British weren't even the first country to do it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your main point, that the film is inaccurate. The solution to that is to point out the actual facts. Currently, the article fails to do this because what it says is demonstrably wrong. The central narrative of the following text is incorrect:

In actuality, the machine was widely known as the Bombe. It was originally designed in 1938 by Marian Rejewski, who along with other Polish cryptographers had successes in decrypting Enigma messages during the 1930s. They were then blocked by complexities resulting from changes in German equipment and procedures. The machine was redesigned and made effective again by Turing (with contributions from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) during 1939 and 1940.

The Bombe machines were not the same as the Bomba or even remotely similar. And nor was the Polish Bomba redesigned by Turing and Welchman. However, with very simple clarification, the text has been corrected to better reflect the facts - and without, I hope you'll agree, unnecessarily overloading the article:

In actuality, this electromechanical machine was called 'Victory'. Victory was a British Bombe machine, which drew a spiritual legacy from a design by the Polish Cryptanalyst Marian Rejewski. Rejewski designed a machine in 1938 called bomba kryptologiczna which exploited a particular, but temporary, weakness in German operating procedures. A new machine with a different strategy was designed by Turing (with a key contribution from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) in 1940.

144.124.228.28 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The basic concept of the Polish and British Bombes was the same: spin several sets of Enigma-wired rotors in parallel and use electrical logic to reject incorrect settings, stopping when a possible match is found. You may think this idea is obvious, but I am not aware of any earlier examples of mechanized code breaking using electro-mechanical analogs. The rejection logic in the British Bombe was totally different and much more sophisticated, since the Germans no longer used the double indicator and made other improvements, and developing it was indeed a major breakthrough. But to suggest the two machines shared a mere "spiritual legacy" gives the Poles too little credit. The fact that the British called their machine a Bombe makes it clear they saw it as a continuation of the Polish work.--agr (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is liable to get rather silly rather quickly. Rather than engage in fruitless back and forth on this, it strikes me as simply easier to turn directly to expert opinion. In this instance, the American cryptanalyst C.A. Deavours, who wrote a rebuttle to Polish claims on this very question in Parameters (a scholarly periodical produced by the US Army War College). To quote his conclusion: "The British Bombes were in no way related to or derived from the earlier Polish bomby nor were Polish methods of cryptanalysis particularly useful after the Germans changed to a better message keying system." See: Parameters, Volume 14, Issue 2 (1984), p. 99. And I could cite plenty of other books and articles all saying basically the same thing. So please, let's put the notion that the British Bombe was merely some form of technical upgrade to the Polish Bomba to bed. it was a totally different machine, which worked on different principles, and achieved a different, albeit superficially similar, goal. 95.146.250.4 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the original naming of Bomba by the Poles from the Wikipedia article Bomba (cryptography) :

How the machine came to be called a "bomb" has been an object of fascination and speculation. One theory, most likely apocryphal, originated with Polish engineer and army officer Tadeusz Lisicki (who knew Rejewski and his colleague Henryk Zygalski in wartime Britain but was never associated with the Cipher Bureau). He claimed that Jerzy Różycki (the youngest of the three Enigma cryptologists, and who had died in a Mediterranean passenger-ship sinking in January 1942) named the "bomb" after an ice-cream dessert of that name. This story seems implausible, since Lisicki had not known Różycki. Rejewski himself stated that the device had been dubbed a "bomb" "for lack of a better idea."

". . Jerzy Różycki (the youngest of the three Enigma cryptologists, and who had died in a Mediterranean passenger-ship sinking in January 1942) named the "bomb" after an ice-cream dessert of that name."

This talk page is given to reactions to a film script where the film makers will hope to finally make a good film. I shift the subject to James Bond in film, still retaining the subject of the machines Enigma and Bomba.

In both the novel and the film of From Russia with Love the prize object is a decoding machine, named Spektor in the novel and Lektor in the film. It is evidently a literary use of the Enigma machine. In historic fact an example of the machine was delivered to London Victoria station 16th August, 1939 to the hand of deputy head of SIS, Stewart Menzies. – Wiki comment: Enigma machine by train to Victoria Station

In the film Diamonds Are Forever, and in the film only, in the closing scene the writers appear to resurrect the, as said to be apocryphal, story of the source for the name of the Polish Bomba machine:

"_ Jerzy Różycki ( . . who had died in a Mediterranean passenger-ship sinking in January 1942) named the "bomb" after an ice-cream dessert of that name."

In this typical Bond film scene, taking place on a trans-Atlantic passenger liner, two recurring characters, Messrs. Wint and Kidd, posing as stewards bring into Bond's suite a splendid repast which contains a pièce de résistance, a huge Bombe Alaska (within which is set a time bomb). The speculative naming of the Polish "bomb" after an ice-cream dessert thus finally finds its way into a related "intelligence" adventure . The scene can be found on YouTube search with the heading of the clip, An interesting clip from "Diamonds are forever".. [ depending on Wikipedia policy the clip is here: An interesting clip from "Diamonds are forever". ]

This hopes to add to the awareness how historic fact or speculation may find related (and belated) appearances further into history in accepted popular entertainments. --Laurencebeck (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

.knowledge of Enigma data shielded from the enemy

From the article to this talk page . . .

From the heading Accuracy

Sub heading Historical events

• Showing a scene where the Hut 8 team decides not to use broken codes to stop a German raid on a convoy that the brother of one of the code breakers (Peter Hilton) is serving on, in order to hide the fact they have broken the code.

In reality, Hilton had no such brother, and decisions about when and whether to use data from Ultra intelligence were made at much higher administrative levels.

". . decisions about when and whether to use data from Ultra intelligence were made at much higher administrative levels."

Very good . . . !

 The bombing of Coventry and the specific November devastation, is definitely within the popular culture as that it might have been averted with defence squadrons if Ultra data had been used. It is virtually common knowledge that Churchill advised that indications should not be given to Germany that England would have such intelligence. This common knowledge is carefully shattered and remoulded in Wikipedia giving exploration of the historical facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz#Coventry_and_Ultra

The wishy-washy device introducing male sibling protection, perhaps worthy of text to be carefully put on a work of Origami, can rather not be taken to involve the Kennedys, say – the significance of the lives of brothers. But, say, there were other brothers in England.  --Laurencebeck (talk): original entry – 01:32, 24 January 2015(UTC) updated – 07:16, 27 January 2015(UTC), updated--Laurencebeck (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy

• In the movie, the 1940's era code-breaking machine "Christopher" has bright red cables. Maybe this looks good in the movies, but bright red colored cables are much more recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the least of the movies sins. They filmed an historical reconstruction of a Bombe built by the Bletchley Park museum. And red colored wires were used in the WW II era, though perhaps not so vividly red. Remember that surviving examples of WWII wiring have faded.--agr (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here. I'd like to understand something and I hope you might be able to help. There's a lot of discussion here about the historical inaccuracy of the film, seemingly from some very qualified minds and sources. Great!

However, is it not common knowledge that any big-budget motion picture is not the place to look for historical accuracy? If "The Imitation Game" were a documentary, I think these criticisms would be thoroughly justified. But the film is a drama, not a documentary. As such, isn't some amount of dramatization to be expected?

Bellsauce (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've deleted the plot summary and reinstated the premise section, because the previous plot summary was far too long (see WP:FILMPLOT. The article needs a plot summary, but IMO it's better for an article to be missing a section than have an extremely overlong, badly written one, which makes the article hard to read. I'd write one myself but I haven't seen the film. Popcornduff (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the plot summary written by @Moviemaster8510: and edited it, as well as putting the storyline into the order it is in the film. It is still perhaps a little long as per WP:FILMPLOT (800 words rather than 400-700) but hopefully it is clearer? I'm certainly open to any further copyediting or suggestions to improve! Melcous (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice job, but it's still too long. It also shouldn't contain things like "the film follows"... etc as the film isn't part of the plot. Popcornduff (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's why it was called a Plot Summary. There is nothing in WP:FILMPLOT to say the section can't include comments (e.g. flashbacks, closing titles, "the story ...") that help the reader understand how the plot unfolds, and in fact some of the examples in WP:PLOTSUM use similar wordings to explain the stories. I've copyedited some changes to put the years in to show how the story unfolds, but personally I think words like "flashback" and "story/narrative" make it easier for the reader to follow and would prefer to put those back in. I've also re-added the repeated/quote tagline from the movie because it is how the movie chooses to summarise the whole story and I don't think it is too detailed to include it (particularly given the level of detail the article has about inaccuracies etc). Melcous (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to use things like "the story", "closing titles" etc. I've yet to write a plot summary that has needed one (and I've written a lot). Popcornduff (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also taken the previous introductory paragraph which summarises how the film unfolds and included it in the lead, because previously we had comments in the lead about how accurate the film is/isn't but nothing about what it actually includes. Melcous (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Turing's suicide

The plot summary previously included a summary of the text that appears on the screen at the end of the film, which notes Turing's suicide as well as his ongoing influence. This was removed by other editors. I'd be happy for it to be reinstated as a separate paragraph. However, the sentence you have added to me doesn't work - as this is a plot summary, it reads as if Turing's suicide is actually portrayed in the film, which it is not. It would be good to get consensus on this and also see if other editors have any comments. Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead was marked by Popcornduff as too long, and thus the paragraph giving an overview of what the film covers (previously in the Synopsis section) was deleted by Babylove. I would suggest that the first paragraph does not cover what the film is about, rather it gives a one sentence description of who the real Turing was. So we now have the situation that the lead does not actually give a summary of what the film does cover, but it includes a paragraph about the historical inaccuracy of what is covered. As my original edit of including the previous paragraph in the lead is seen as making it too long, I would propose also deleting the paragraph about historical accuracy from the lead, or alternatively, rewriting that paragraph so it gives both a brief summary of what is actually in the film as well as a comment (perhaps briefer than present) about those who consider it inaccurate. My main reason why is that this is an article about the film, and yet it appears to give much more space to detailing what the film does not cover than it does to what the film does cover. Thoughts? Melcous (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree (with the caveat that I haven't seen the film). The historical accuracy of the film is worth discussing in the article, but not worth spending more than a sentence on in the lead. Popcornduff (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The historical accuracy part is only a sentence in the lead now (that occupies a paragraph). That should stay as it is. (A useful comparison is Argo (2012 film), which also devotes a one-sentence paragraph in its lead to historical accuracy.) I agree that more description of what the film is about needs to be in the lead too. What I think could be condensed is the current second paragraph ("The film's screenplay topped the annual ..." and on). A lot of what is in that paragraph is really background material at this point and can be merged into the "Production" and "Marketing" sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence on historical accuracy was a very long sentence occupying its own paragraph. Its length and placement suggested it was the most important thing about the film, which isn't the case. I've removed it for now, but it could be re-added in a more neutral and concise form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfud (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Need stronger criticism

Geniuses are a bit odd sometimes, but not like they portrayed Turning in the immitation game. We need to mention this controversy in the lead because historical documentaries create false histories.

In this film, Alan Turing was effectively portrayed as if he were a man already emotionally suffering from state torture as opposed to a man yet to be tortured. This obscures the crimes committed against him by the British government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.105.123 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Funny, Cumberbatch looks like a prosecutor himself, classical face of prosecutor (wonder about of the choice, I think it was thoughtfully made so by people who knew what are they doing by choosing this actor) and of course adding to it: Alex Lawther, don't mind the boy, but LAW-ther to play Turing, yet again. What US law wants from Turing? Interesting. Is he sort of the defense lawyer paradigm and why it is later broken by the prosecutor image of Cumberbatch?

This is not flattering for him, Turing, and adding a new sketch on his accusations in court. They depicted a prosecutor-like actor as him, and showing him lawful, obviously in young age. How charming. Wander what Turing himself would say about that, hah, Alex Lawful, this is very law-convincing, even law-conquesting. I'm shocked. I've only read some of his papers on cryptography and just now understood about this American movie. My guess is Americans couldn't think of anything better. If this is how you win in court of law, in afterlife. I bet most of Turing wanted to not have the injection and meeting psychiatrists, and couldn't care less of law system (himself)* If Americans wanted so badly to find him, or elaborate him defense, why didn't they depicted defensive characters outside of his own character? That's my point. And do you know what are the relationships of American prosecutors? With their female colleagues! Classic. Therefore the movie (whith this Lara or so). Objection pls. And he is returned to Brit Intelligence cryptography again while I think his colleagues and the Intelligence did nothing to protect him and his true health. Is it not why he killed himself after all? --SortOf2 (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree that it should be in the lead, but @Popcornduff: removed all mention of this from there, saying (see above) that any such mention needs to be more "neutral and concise". The lead text that was removed was: "In terms of historical accuracy, while the broad outline of Turing's life as depicted in the film is true, a number of historians have noted that elements within it represent distortions of what actually happened, especially in terms of Turing's work at Bletchley Park during the war and his relationship with friend and fellow code breaker Joan Clarke." This seemed reasonably concise to me and more than neutral – I previously had it saying "major distortions" (which they were) before a different editor watered that down. And above that @Melcous: talked about maybe mentioning "those who consider it inaccurate" in the lead, as if there's some kind of division of opinion among knowledgeable people about the film's fidelity to what really happened (there isn't). I agree with the Peter Maass piece you link to about the dangers of false history, but it appears as though I'm in the minority. That's the way it goes on WP sometimes. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence I removed wasn't concise - it was long and complex and not particularly well written. Its placement in the lead also slightly damaged its neutrality, IMO, making it seem more important than the film's critical and commercial success. Remember that we have to report what's most important about the subject from an encyclopedic perspective, and our opinions about Turing's treatment by the British government aren't relevant.

But you're both right - the lead should summarise the contents of the article, and since we have sections challenging the film's historical accuracy, this should be mentioned in the lead. It doesn't need more than a sentence (a concise one!) and could probably follow the summary of the critical reception. I might take a look at adding it myself later. Popcornduff (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do have a go at it. It's always better for the objector to propose something than for the proponents to guess at what will pass muster. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Popcornduff (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

More needs to be done to clarify this. Saying "based on the biography" in the first sentence is very misleading as most of the movie is fiction that contradicts the book. Also, saying "Some historians criticized" is inadequate because it sounds like the minority opinion of a few sticklers. There is a broad consensus that the movie is not factual or faithful to the biography. Roger (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Not faithful to biography and not faithful to what is possible in court I'd say. In court you could be your own lawyer (Lawther) but not your own prosecutor (Cumberbatch). This is painful and ridiculous. Besides Turing was too shy and charming to have prosecutors instincts that to save him from having any trouble of any kind with the law system. You know, he was mainly mathematician not an expert in law as the American movie tries to depict him. Because he was strange and different he was able to come out with difficult mathematical decisions, lawyers and prosecutors are not able to do so, usually, they just don't have the imaginary. Therefor I'd say this movie is boring and wouldn't watch it, probably one of many attempts to defense him. But a strange and not very skillful one, because you cannot touch the essence of a human, and Turing believed in something like the spirit (bringer of the unique essence of the character of person). And he in essence is to be good mathematician, not a law/court magician lol. --SortOf2 (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

private screening encyclopaedia worthy?

I doubt the following should be in this article:--69.172.145.156 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In November 2014 The Weinstein Company co-hosted a private screening of the film with Digital Sky Technologies billionaire Yuri Milner and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Attendees of the screening at Los Altos Hills, California included Silicon Valley's top executives including Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Linkedin’s Reid Hoffman, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Airbnb’s Nathan Blecharczyk and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. Director Tyldum, screenwriter Moore and actress Knightley were also in attendance.[35] In addition, Cumberbatch and Zuckerberg presented the Math Prizes at the Breakthrough Awards on 10 November 2014 in honour of Turing.[36]

Plot section is wrong

The synopsis contains several mistakes (plus, it's generally written as if someone explained to you the film, with sentences like "the story is not linear" and "and then the attention switches to", which aren't part of the plot). The flashback to Turing's childhood doesn't start after the 1951 scene, but after Turing is put in charge of the team by Churchill. And it's not 1927, but 1928. I suggest an entire rewrite of the section. 188.218.57.162 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead if you saw the movie. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming at Bletchley Park

Which parts of Bletchley Park were filmed? I did not see the mansion and I cannot recall any other parts that I recognised from Bletchley Park. It's strange that Joyce House was portrayed as the mansion (at least that's the impression I got watching the film). I ask this as I know BP quite intimately as I was resident there for nearly two years from 1982.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.20.68.68 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Asperger's-like?

"the Asperger's-like traits portrayed in the film – an intellectual snob with no friends, no sense of how to work cooperatively with others, and no understanding of humour" - Sorry, but as a woman with Asperger's, what the hell? That sounds more like a ridiculous, cartoonish, exaggerated stereotype of Asperger's, not anything like the vast majority of other people with Asperger's I've ever met. Or any of them, really. This is honestly kind of offensively written, but I'm not sure I should edit myself as obviously I'm a little too close to the subject here. Xmoogle (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I changed my mind and did an edit. Changed to "the (highly exaggerated stereotype of) Asperger's-like traits". This could probably be worded much better, but the original wording cannot stand. It's just too offensive in its original wording. Xmoogle (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Loosely Based?

I have attempted to indicate that "loosely based" scarcely does justice to the fact that the screenplay bears little relationship to the book or indeed the true story; other than the broadest outline, it is a work of fiction in all the detail. I suggested qualifying "loosely" with either "very" or "only". My edits have been repeatedly reverted with the suggestion that I gain a consensus on this talk page. It is not clear to me why my edits require a consensus but the reversions apparently do not. Reading much of the other material on this page indicated to me that almost all contributors are seriously concerned about the lack of factual accuracy in the film. 31.54.193.5 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The term "loosely based" means it is very different from the source material. No need for further adjectives in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gothicfilm, adding another adjective to loosely is grammatically awkward and the phrase "loosely based" covers it for the lead, and this is then explained in detail later in the article. (BTW, IP user, the reason for asking for consensus is because you are suggesting a change rather than what has previously been agreed. See WP:BRD) Melcous (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalingrad?

The film claims that the Enigma decryptions won Stalingrad and shortened the war by two years. This is clearly utterly false but isn't mentioned in the inaccuracies section.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why I replaced Ultra by Ultra#Safeguarding_of_sources

Excuse me for using Wikipedia a source, but Ultra#Safeguarding_of_sources suggests that there is no real clear evidence that the allies deliberately allowed people to die in order to protect the secret. This is a important point.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Anachronism

The policeman investigating the break-in at Turing's home is shown using liquid paper. This was not available in the 1950s in the UK. I remeeber in the 1970s only using Tipp-ex correction paper - liquid paper wasn't available then, let alone in the 50s in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.137.100 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

British-American

This is a British-American film. Variety is a reliable source. Why is it being removed from the article? Also, it was nominated by several reputable awards bodies for Best British Film. — Film Fan 23:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Two of the most used sources for nationality call it American only - the BFI and the AFI. The production companies Black Bear Pictures and Bristol Automotive are both American, as well as The Weinstein Company. The screenplay was developed in the US with an American screenwriter. The three producers all have PGA after their names in the credits. Country is determined by the production companies, not subject matter or location. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you could point me to the article about the nationality of a film being based solely on the nationality of the production companies, that'd be great. There's no mention of it here. While the BFI and AFI list the film as American, the other two notable sources mentioned in the link I just provided (as well as many other reliable sources) both list it as British-American, and that guide also states: "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article."

Basically, the film should be labelled British-American as per the guidelines, or nationality should be omitted.

Also, looking at the history of the article, I can see you've had this battle with numerous editors. You obviously have some strong connection to this film. — Film Fan 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines do not say this should be labelled British-American. If you look at the history more closely, you'll see others beside me reverting people claiming this should be labelled British, usually because of subject matter. It was another editor who first put American in the lead. I just restored it. The production company as determining factor for nationality is long established by many discussions at WP:FILM. If the British Film Institute says it's American, as well as the AFI, that's much stronger than a Variety review. Here Variety is outnumbered by the other two. Variety and other early reviews are often the only sources before a film is released. Once the AFI and BFI publish their pages on a film (which can take months), we usually go with them. I have reverted many other editors labeling other films American, such as here. But in the case of The Imitation Game, the production was American, as I showed above. It's important to maintain that as too many come here thinking it must be British because of the subject matter and location. Also you should have a neutral heading for this section like "Country of production". Reverting it back to "British-American" just shows people you want to win and need the header to be on your side, but it doesn't convince anyone. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, like the British American Tabacco. Is it British or is it American. British and American blends are different and in the end you get American prosecutor played by his usual British depiction Cumberbatch, and American way of relationship bonding serving Bletchley Park. Are we sure there isn't some other country involved or the lines in the movie were about to get too long for the third to mention? With this Advocacy thing (by Alex Lawther). I mean, Brits have Turing for the job, Americans ensure advocating? prosecutor role, the real defense lawyer should be coming from somewhere else.--SortOf2 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Latter"/"Last"

I do wish some people would finally learn exactly what the word 'latter' really means. Often they put 'latter' when it should be 'last'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.128.106 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was used correctly in the article. I have changed it back. And don't edit the text of other people's posts on Talk pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Shadow - but that is indeed what he is. What leads you to believe otherwise? --2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! I had assumed that was your opinion and not his actual title. I'll remove the warning from your talk page Shadowrvn728 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Many thanks. He actually has had an interesting life. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of pronunciation

In the scene on the grass at Bletchley Park with Joan Clarke and Alan Turing, Joan Clarke refers to Euler's theorem but despite having a first class honours degree in mathematics from Cambridge pronounces it 'You-lers' rather than the correct 'Oil-ers'. (82.16.132.183 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Imitation Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• The "short description" should go above everything else per WP:ORDER.
• The talk page says the article is written in British English so add that template.
• The link for the BBFC reference had changed and should be updated.
• That same reference should also not be in WP:ALLCAPS.
• The second reference the "country" parameter should be properly cited and marked as dead.
• Future sections name this a British film, so shouldn't that be mentioned in the infobox?
• The budget reference is missing several parameters.
• The Box Office Mojo source should go to the summary, not the domestic gross.
• I would also recommend using the "cite Box Office Mojo" template.
• The lead should summarize the entire article and is currently missing any mention of #Production.
• For some reason Alan Turing is linked multiple times so remove the last few per WP:OVERLINK.
• "cryptanalyst Alan Turing" → "cryptanalyst Turing" (already mentioned)
• The lead should also include a link to the awards list.

Plot and cast

• The plot section is under 700 words so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
• Add a serial comma after Keith Furman.
• "The team are" → "The team is"
• Remove the comma after "intercept the messages".
• No issues with the cast section.

Production

 Working

Music

 Working

Release

 Working

Reception

 Working

Social action

 Working

Controversy

 Working

Historical inaccuracies

 Working

Accolades

 Working

References

• Archive sources.
• Why are so many references missing authors, dates, access dates, and websites?
• WhatCulture is not a reliable source and should not be used.
• Same issues with New York Post and Daily Express, so remove their uses per WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYEXPRESS.

 Working

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

• @Isi96: Actually, no. After a long look at the article, I have to fail it per the first note at WP:GAFAIL. There are simply too many issues with the references that a copy edit would be recommended instead. As someone who tries their best to improve citations, that section in this article is simply too much. Some are missing authors and dates while others are missing access dates and websites altogether, and a thorough review would clearly show why this article is really far from being a GA. It also appears that you have not tried to check or improve the article itself, and your most recent edit was in 2019. So, again, please submit this article for a copyedit and feel free to nominate again when you do, but at this moment, this article has been failed its GAN. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for the feedback. I thought the article would be eligible for GA nomination as the WikiProjects had it ranked at B-class. Isi96 (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)