Talk:Wong Kar-wai

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Family name

WONG is the family name. I think this should be indicated. eysiz

It was decided the wikipedia not to follow a consistent notation for Chinese names. In the recent articles on Olympics, names of the Chinese athletes were presented the Chinese way or the American way arbituarily with no indication on which is the family name. Since the concept of "last name" does not mean much outside of the US and some Western culture, the assumption of family name = last name is bogus. I suggested here couple years ago that wikipedia needed to adopt the international standard of writing family names in ALL CAPs like in the CIA's The World factbook. The idea was shot down. The confusion continued, but at lease it was a decided that way. Kowloonese 22:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.. this way we'd be able to use the Chinese order while still indicating the family name for western readers... eysiz.

May 7, 2005 edits

Hope nobody minds my barging in on someone else's fine start and scribbling all over it. I just thought some more discussion of Wong's characteristics and themes as a filmmaker was needed, especially since there was a reference to Wong's "unique style" but no description of what that style might consist of.

A couple questions:

1) Wasn't ITMFL shot largely in Bangkok, not Macau? I know that at least a lot of it was shot in Bangkok.

Yes, probably the intended Beijing scenes were moved to Macau, not the entire movie

2) And I'm pretty sure that Wong wasn't really "one of the first film-makers in Hong Kong to establish his own independent production company." Tsui Hark, for one, did it in 1984 with Film Workshop. I think Shaw Brothers star director Li Han Hsiang moved to Taiwan and set up his own company in the '60s, although it sank like a stone.

One of the few maybe? Btw, nice job, on HK cinema article also :-) --Ajshm 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Wells 06:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback re. the main HK cinema page, Ajshm - nice to know somebody's reading.
Re: ITMFL and the move away from Beijing. I dunno. I thought that move was also at least partly because, in typical WKW fashion, the story was evolving away from its initial, contemporary, Beijing setting. But I'm not sure. Sometime soon I'll recheck the documentary material on my Criterion Collection DVD and see what they say about that.
Mainly I think it's a bit of IMDB trivia that's been circulating on the net because that the sort of thing people are interested in, the PRC oppressing poor artists. But actually I managed to find a link to an interview I read that might explain it. The intervie also sheds some light on his working methods http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2000_08/eiff_wongkarwai.html --Ajshm 21:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The first of these was supposed to be Summer in Beijing, starring Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung, but
we couldn't reach an agreement about filming in Beijing with the China Film Bureau and so
we had to give up. But the actors were still on-side, and I didn't want to let the project die.
My first idea was to go ahead with Summer in Beijing - with 'Beijing' now being a restaurant
in Macau.


Re: directors with indie production companies. I keep thinking of others. Wong Jing has two. Peter Chan and a few others set up United Filmmakers Organization (UFO). Johnnie To and Wai Ka-fai set up Milkyway Image Productions. I actually think that's pretty common in the modern era, as it is in Hollywood. I'm altering the sentence accordingly.
Michael Wells 20:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Cold

"lead actress Maggie Cheung famously compared the lengthy shoot to a cold she couldn't get rid of"

this was ITML not Ashes of Time, right?

Pronunciation

I've been told by a couple of chinese friends that his name should be pronounced Wong Gar Wee. Can anyone confirm/explain this? Thx

Not sure how good your Cantonese romanisation is (and I prefer the Yale Romanization of Cantonese), but I've linked some wav files here so you can hear exactly how his name is pronounced. WòhngGàWaih. Hong Qi Gong 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

/Ajshm 15:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)/

Chinese Names

Added Chinese names next to the English names of some of the actors, actresses, and films mentioned in the article. This is for those who may be more familiar with those people's and films' Chinese names, and also to eliminate some ambiguity, because some actors and actresses have the same English names. For example, there are two "Tony Leung" and two "Maggie Cheung". Hong Qi Gong 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2046 pic wrong caption +

in the 2046 benind the scene picture, the guy in the middle is not William Cheung. btw, re: ITMFL, most scene was shot in Hong Kong - the apartment(in TST district), the hotel(an ex-hospital), the alley(now demolished, in off-Central district), the restaurant(in Causeway Bay district, same one as in 2046, now they have a "2046 set dinner for 2" on the menu, charging HK$204.6); certain street scenes and the newspaper office where tony leung works (also breifly reappeared in 2046) is in thailand, still there near chinatown.

Dark Sunglasses...relevant?

I'm wondering whether "He often wears dark sunglasses" is really a suitable piece of information to go in the introductory paragraph. --Tyrant007 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Birth date

Are there any sources of the fact, that Kar-wai was born on Julu 17, 1958? Yahoo! movies contended that he was born November 30, 1957 — fatal_exception ?! 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi, we can't use fair use images of a DVD to illustrate the director's article. That's not narrow enough to satisfy WP:FU. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone

Wong's current nostalgic artsy style took shape... One just wanders what pop vulgarian added that bit on...

208.87.248.162 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wong Kar-wai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Standard name capitalization

The current article freely mixes upper- and lower-case versions of the filmmaker's name: Wong Kar-Wai and Wong Kar-wai.

  • Variety uses the final lower capitalization - Wong Kar-wai
  • Hollywood Reporter mostly uses the final upper capitalization: Wong Kar Wai
  • The Academy of Arts and Sciences (Oscars) also uses the final upper version: Wong Kar Wai

Do we have any consensus or definitive source for the Western version? We should make this consistent throughout the article.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Criterion also uses the lowercase hyphenated version "Wong Kar-wai". Since there have been no objections since August, looks like we'll move forward with this version. - Wong Kar-wai --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy Together and “LGBT” Films in Hong Kong

The description currently reads: “[Wong] was keen to present the relationship as ordinary and universal, as he felt Hong Kong's previous LGBT films had not.” However, the initialism “LGBT” does not appear in the sourced interview. Rather, both Wong and the interviewer refer specifically to homosexuality in Hong Kong cinema. Wong also uses the phrase “gay film.” I will wait a few days before making the edit in order to give other editors who might object an opportunity to respond. Flyhurter (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Best to go with the sourced interview, so long as the terms are included in a quote. if you're not going to use an exact quote, you can add a note to the description instead for clarification.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Notable works" in the infobox

I propose that we stop listing Wong Kar-wai's "notable works" in the main infobox. The parameter is useful for people who have made one or two notable works in their life, but a top-tier director like Wong has nearly a dozen prominent, acclaimed films to his credit. You'll notice the infoboxes of the likes of Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg don't feature such a laundry list of items. Further, they make the infobox too long, and prompt tiresome questions of including this movie or excluding that one. Thus it's best to completely remove the list of films from the infobox; they're also covered in the lede anyway.—indopug (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a fair idea to remove it. I think there are situations where a major filmmaker could still use a notable works sections to cut down on a large proportion of minor works, but given that the majority of Wong's films are notable I'm fine with cutting it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree -- let's cut it. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

The Controversy section appears to have been disproportionately trimmed and tightly controlled by GimmeChoco44 on the grounds of “subjective wording,” which is itself subjective, given that all content was properly sourced and supported. For instance, the deleted sentence in the opening, “His working methods and professional ethics have strained his relationships with actors, producers, and other collaborators” is an apt summary of the section and explains the nature of the controversy — namely, to whom and how — rather than expressing opinion. It cannot reasonably be called “subjective” when it is objectively documented and well-supported in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, the list of abandoned projects, many caused by Wong’s delays, was removed, and the cited material on Song Hye-kyo’s claim was repeatedly deleted with calls for further citation. These removals are unwarranted, disproportionate, and risk censorship.

Enrico Chou (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What's at issue here are blanket subjective statements that are neither quoted or sourced. Examples from the removed text include: "...despite being a critical darling"; "has long been a polarizing figure"; "Wong's revisions to his films can be obsessive and arbitrary"; "roles were significantly reduced without notice"; "Wong is notorious"; etc. -- these types of statements can be challenged as subjective and do not satisfy Wikipedia's mandate of maintaining on objective view and encyclopedic style (ref: WP:ENCSTYLE), in which content must be "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate".
Elements which are sourced and quoted should be reinstated if you can find citations. (ref: WP:WHYCITE) GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
All the examples you mentioned are well supported by the surrounding text (e.g., “without notice” by the examples of Andy Lau and Maggie Cheung; "notorious" by the “Wong Kar-wai Victims League”), by the context of the section (“polarizing figure”), and even by the entire article (“critical darling”). Furthermore, adjectives are not “subjective” in themselves; they function as concise summaries of the laundry lists and signposts within long sections, especially where no subheadings are provided.
For example, one of your openers,“Wong’s revisions to his films include abandoning entire characters or projects,” is not only understated but also unclear to readers as to why this is "controversial." The adjectives are not subjective embellishments; obsessive conveys the objective financial and time costs, which is elaborated later, while arbitrary reflects the perspective of actors and collaborators.
The adjectives are also used in the same way as in other sections throughout the page. By your definition of “subjective,” half of the article would have to be removed, since it's full of “blanket subjective statements,” such as “pivotal figure,” “contemporary auteur,” and “one of the best filmmakers,” many of which are neither quoted or sourced.
In the end, I did try to improve the section, including correcting and adding sources, but they were repeatedly, disproportionately reverted by you without apparent review of the revision history. Enrico Chou (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Let's get some other editors to review. I feel that these subjective statements don't match Wikipedia's guidelines, and you clearly feel that inference is enough to substitute for actual sources. Facts can be stated and sourced. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The summary sentences immediately followed by a list of well-sourced examples are not “inferences." And your standard for “subjective” wording is subjective: “pivotal figure,” “contemporary auteur,” and “one of the best filmmakers” are not meaningfully different from “critical darling”.
Enrico Chou (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Citing other areas in the article which merit attention doesn't justify repeating the subjective method in this section.
The solution seems to be limiting subjective terms to the quoted and sourced examples, while maintaining a balanced and objective framework for the introductory sentences.
Note: this will also leave room for contradictory entries by personnel who do not agree with the negative statements, which is a missing element in this section. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Citing the consistent use of far more subjective and hyperbolic wording throughout the article, including in the lead and the distinctly laudatory “Legacy” section, more than justifies the moderate phrase “critical darling.” You are the one to justify the inconsistent and selective application of such a heightened standard, which has not been applied during your long involvement with the page until now. Given that much more subjective language has long been accepted elsewhere, it is difficult not to see this section as being held to a different standard simply because it does not cover favorable material. The issue here is not that the language is subjective, but that the standard applied to it is. Enrico Chou (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
An attempt at compromise has been made. The majority of your edits have been maintained, and the overall substance of this section of the article, while still in need of more balanced sources, has remained intact. The specific edits re: (a) use of quotations from non-English sources, and (b) use of subjective (mostly accusatory or negative) language in paragraph introductions are merited and have been removed with specific challenges and explanations in each case.
Furthermore, several details in this section list Sina as a source, which should be replaced by the original source article since Sina as the aggregator is not considered [[WP:RS]] and some of the original reporting may possibly be considered unreliable (ref: ).
I feel this section is in need of more a more balanced narrative without subjective statements, otherwise it falls under [[WP:UNDUE]]. As mentioned earlier, I would welcome other editors of this page to weigh in on this topic. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I have significantly shortened this section removing WP:SYNTH where several disparate accounts were stitched together to create a narrative none of them made independently. In some cases these led to explicit factual errors such as saying an actor lambasted Wong Kar Wai for crew members getting arrested for prostitution (this never happened.) I also removed any claims that were only sourced to a single article. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE sole-sourced "controversies" are not due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
If single-source citations violated core policy, barely anything would be left on Wikipedia. These points are well-reported and can easily pull from multiple sources, but a lack of redundant citations is probably not the real reason for such excessive deletion anyway.
Frankly, the pushback here seems to stem from an information imbalance. To the English-speaking world, who primarily know Wong as an artsy festival circuit auteur, these controversies might sound jarring, even though they are neither new nor marginal in the Chinese-speaking world. If the wording sounds harsh, it is simply because the original sources are harsh. Enrico Chou (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
To avoid vague style debates or veering into fan gatekeeping, I suggest focusing on specific text to build consensus. For example, pointing out that the current wording of Leung Ka-fai's criticism creates ambiguity is a constructive point. We can easily revise that sentence to clarify his meaning, even if the ambiguity was entirely unintended. However, deleting well-reported content simply because it lacks a second citation is not a valid application of policy, especially when additional sources can be easily added.
Enrico Chou (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Single sources are insufficient specifically for controversies surrounding living public figures. This is a very specific WP:BLP policy and not something that applies to all articles on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Why don't you cite that rule if it's really in the linked page? Enrico Chou (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
From WP:PUBLICFIGURE If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Like this is one of Wikipedia's least ambiguous policies. Simonm223 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
As said, if the only problem is technical instead of substantive, the proper way forward should be adding more sources; they were well-reported and it can be easily done, instead of engaging in excessive deletion veering into thinly veiled censorship.
Enrico Chou (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Also, a slightly closer reading of the rule shows that it doesn't really require multiple citations; it's just a reminder for editors to ensure the content is supported. Treating fewer than two citations as a policy violation is a pretext. Enrico Chou (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Controversy section is still disproportionately large and contains excessive detail. Major controversies affecting the filmmaker's career should be given more weight, and simple gossip or stories of personality conflicts should be trimmed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Which parts are “simple gossip or stories of personality conflicts” that don’t affect the filmmaker’s career and should be deleted? Enrico Chou (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: include production company response in Blossoms Shanghai paragraph

I have disclosed COI.

The section currently includes the allegations from Cheng Junnian regarding Blossoms Shanghai but does not incude the production team's official public statement.

I propose adding the following statement: On November 8, 2025, the Blossoms Shanghai production team issued a public statement on the show's official Weibo account denying the allegations. The statement characterized the leaked recordings as obtained without consent and "containing numerous inaccuracies, deliberate editing, and malicious interpretations," and stated that Cheng was a member of the pre-production research team rather than a credited screenwriter. The production team also said it had submitted evidence to judicial authorities.

Sources: Sina News: https://news.sina.com.cn/s/2025-11-08/doc-infwsynp1206511.shtml Tencent News: https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20251108A05AOZ00 ifeng News: https://news.ifeng.com/c/8o7SyFoib7Y

Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, significant viewpoints published in reliable sources should be represented in proportion to their prominence; the production team's on-record public denial appears to qualify.

Please consider this suggestion. Thank you.

Murphyslaw77 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply 16-JUN-2026

  Not an actionable request  

  • There are no directions for where the proposed text is to be placed.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Restoration of attack content

A while back, an editor added a massive wall of essay-like attack content to slant the article against the subject. I removed the offending content, but it was restored by glman per WP:NOTCENSORED. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do you feel like the content is "attack content"? Negative content is allowed on Wikipedia and the content appears well-sourced. I will begin double checking the references once I am able to confirm. glman (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Controversy sections are not good practice in any page, especially not a BLP. I will remove the section. I suggest that anything that meets WP:PUBLICFIGURE should be restored more organically and neutrally into relevant career or personal life sections. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm too late to the discussion, but still wanted to leave a comment.
That section left me dumbfounded when I first read it. There was nothing neutral about it. It really read like "Actually Wong Kar-wai sucks big time" essay. For comparison, the subsection "Methods and collaborators" is neutral and balanced. It mentions the challenges of his approach, but it does not use inflammatory language. I'm glad it was removed for now. If it ever returns, it needs a complete overhaul. CJC-DI (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: 2009 Polanski-petition reference in Personal life section (WP:UNDUE / WP:BLPSTYLE)

Hello,

I have a disclosed COI with the subject of this article and am posting per WP:COI; my Connected contributor notice is at the top of this page.

The current "Personal life" section contains the following:

"In 2009, Wong signed a petition in support of director Roman Polanski after his arrest in relation to his 1977 sexual abuse charges while traveling to a film festival, which the petition argued would undermine the tradition of film festivals as a place for works to be shown "freely and safely" and could open the door "for actions of which no-one can know the effects."

I'd like to propose two options for editor consideration:

Primary suggestion: removal under WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Wong was one of approximately 138 signatories of the petition; he has no record of subsequent public statements regarding this matter. As a one-off act 17 years ago with no follow-up, the level of detail seems disproportionate to its weight in a four-decade career.

Fallback suggestion: if the material is retained, it may be better placed outside "Personal life" in a more appropriate section reflecting public/professional statements rather than personal-biographical material. Under WP:BLPSTYLE, “Personal life” typically covers marriage, family, residence, and similar biographical-personal matters.

I'd welcome any uninvolved editor's review. Thanks for considering. Murphyslaw77 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I have added an edit request template on your behalf. In the meantime, please ask the user to rewrite this request without the use of AI as you fabricated information from the very first sentence of this request (there is no COI notice anywhere on this page or the article). The use of AI to communicate or generate article content is generally prohibited. Thank you. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 16:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: 2009 Polanski-petition reference in Personal life section (WP:UNDUE / WP:BLPSTYLE)

I would like to suggest an edit to the “Personal life” section.

Conflict of interest disclosure: I am a former employee of Mr. Wong and submitting this request voluntarily. I am not acting on his behalf nor am I being compensated for this action.

The current "Personal life" section contains the following:

"In 2009, Wong signed a petition in support of director Roman Polanski after his arrest in relation to his 1977 sexual abuse charges while traveling to a film festival, which the petition argued would undermine the tradition of film festivals as a place for works to be shown "freely and safely" and could open the door "for actions of which no-one can know the effects."

I'd like to propose two options for editor consideration:

1. Removal of this sentence as it is an unusual inclusion under "Personal life", which typically covers marriage, family, residence, and similar biographical-personal matters. Additionally, the above sentence refers to a one-off act from 17 years ago with no subsequent statements regarding this matter. The level of detail seems disproportionate to its weight in a four-decade career.

2. Fallback suggestion: if the material is retained, it may be better placed outside "Personal life" in a more appropriate section reflecting public/professional statements.

Thank you for your consideration.

Murphyslaw77 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I have again added {{Edit COI}} to the top of your request on your behalf. Thank you for rewriting your request. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 16:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
thank you for the feedback. Murphyslaw77 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)