Talk:The Fifth Element

Plot

At the end of the plot section, the article currently says "Dallas confesses his love for Leeloo and kisses her. In response, Leeloo combines the power of the stones as the Fifth Element and releases the divine light on the great evil." Although the script broadly points to Leeloo as the Fifth Element, it always seemed clear to me that it wasn't her. The Fifth Element is Love. This is supported by the priest's quiet exhortation to "Tell her, Corben."

Suggested replacement text: "Dallas confesses his love for Leeloo and kisses her. Love is the Fifth Element. It activates Leeloo, and allows her to combine the power of the stones and release a powerful light that destroys the great evil." AceNZ (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that it's never stated in the film that Love is the Fifth Element, so it would be inappropriate for us to state it. Our role is to recount what occurs in the film, not inject our own interpretations.

I would, however, be amenable to dropping the part about the Fifth Element altogether. DonIago (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't say that The Fifth Element is love since that's never explicitly stated, though we can drop the mention of Leeloo being The Fifth Element. I've just done that. Freikorp (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh, when Corbin joins Leeloo in their sleep chamber (or whatever it's called) on the spaceship that is going to take them to Fhloston Paradise, Leeloo surprises Dallas by now being able to speak English. Basically, the first thing she says to him is, "You no trouble. Me... Fifth element... supreme being. Me protect you." Apparently, Leeloo believes she is the fifth element and who is going to argue with a "supreme being." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4280:a710:64e4:5:c7b8:5110 (talk)

What does that have to do with anything? It's well established before that that Leeloo is considered a 'Fifth Element', but it never clarifies exactly what that means. I stand by the current text in the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Citeable source: Susan Hayward, p. 143 of The Seeing Century (Google books online) says "The question becomes why after all, in Besson's film, is the fifth element a woman? ... [T]he fifth element alone can save the world ...."Kdammers (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Google Books only offers a snippet preview, which itself does not show the answer to the question [1]. Keep in mind that even if it did, the source would only have so much weight, since the author has no direct connection to the film. If Besson explicitly clarified what he considers the Fifth Element to be, since he wrote and directed the film, that would be taken as hard fact. At best, this source (assuming it answers the question, which may have been hypothetical), could only be used to say 'Susan Hayward interprets The Fifth Element to be XYZ'. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Song reference

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_(Ava_Max_song)

Kenixkil (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; thanks for sharing. Her outfits in the music video are clearly inspired by The Fifth Element, as is supported by the references in that article. I'm not convinced this needs to be mentioned in this article though. Typically mentions like this go in 'Legacy' sections, but I think it would look a bit out of place in this one at present. Happy to hear other opinions on it though. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Found paragraph that may need splitting

The first paragraph of the "[p]roduction" section seems overly long to me (footnotes removed):

Could anyone please tell me where a good place to split it would be?--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I can't say I see what the problem is. I don't see a need to split it, nor a great place to do so. The paragraph stays focused and is consistent with subsequent paragraphs, so in my opinion splitting it well would probably require rewording and reorganising the entire section. The first paragraph is only slightly longer than the second paragraph after all. Also just for future reference in general, I don't see much point in copy pasting an entire paragraph onto a talk page to refer to it. Part of a paragraph might be appropriate to highlight what you're referring to, but people can easily find the entire first paragraph of the production section if they want to see what you're talking about, so pasting it here just bloats the talk page. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision 1257574079

Hi, re: Undid revision 1257574079 by Lux-Spiritus (talk)

[No quibble re: name revert, thanks; I'd mistakenly thought the name 'Korben' was already in place, 'matched' it in error] re: Plot expansion: 'Dallas attempts to rouse the unconscious Leeloo by planting a kiss, she immediately awakens, and putting Dallas' gun to his head states, "Seno akta gammat!" which Cornelius translates as, "Never without my permission.' - I thought tied in with the end paragraph in the sub-section? - 'Dallas declares his love..' - But I could be alone in that view, & I realise that too much in a summary prevents it from being a summary.

*Perhaps the 'She introduces herself as Leeloominaï Lekatariba-Lamina-Tchaï Ekbat De Sebat - Dallas is unable to pronounce this lengthy title; it is shortened to 'Leeloo.' - could be served by putting the character's full name in the 'Cast' section?

Radium-13 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Its more the point that per WP:FILMPLOT and WP:NOT#PLOT, summaries of films should remain concise and no more than 700 words. This scene is not essential to the plot, nor is the full name of Leeloo. Masem (t) 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)