No edit summary |
|||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
:Your contributions to the film article are [[WP:OR|original research]] because they make ''novel'' connections between historical sources and the film itself. You are offering personally created items of value by offering factoids unrelated to the film in the context of the film. That's why I mentioned the sources being published before the film was released; it is demonstrably clear that such sources have no commentary about the film. This is only an argument to preempt the real issue because even if a book was published this year about Operation Valkyrie and did not mention the film at all, it still cannot be used in context of the film. If we personally compared and contrasted every item between historical sources and the film, it would be an indiscriminate list with no inherent way to demonstrate the significance of any point. That's why we only include comparisons and contrasts as published by independent authorities. That's why the "Historical accuracy" section explicitly compares and contrasts film and history. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">[[User:Erik|Erik]]</font> ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
:Your contributions to the film article are [[WP:OR|original research]] because they make ''novel'' connections between historical sources and the film itself. You are offering personally created items of value by offering factoids unrelated to the film in the context of the film. That's why I mentioned the sources being published before the film was released; it is demonstrably clear that such sources have no commentary about the film. This is only an argument to preempt the real issue because even if a book was published this year about Operation Valkyrie and did not mention the film at all, it still cannot be used in context of the film. If we personally compared and contrasted every item between historical sources and the film, it would be an indiscriminate list with no inherent way to demonstrate the significance of any point. That's why we only include comparisons and contrasts as published by independent authorities. That's why the "Historical accuracy" section explicitly compares and contrasts film and history. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">[[User:Erik|Erik]]</font> ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Elections== |
|||
Hi Erik, would you like to vote for me in the Wikiproject Film Coordinators Elections? [[User:Shamwow86|Shamwow86]] ([[User talk:Shamwow86|talk]]) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:39, 16 March 2009
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
American films
My concern is that, without defining subcategories such as "American drama films" and such, the "American films" category will soon be hopelessly overpopulated. While I agree that no one should tamper with the "Americanfilms" template, I fail to see how modifying a simple category does any harm. In fact, I think it helps. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Treybien 13:02 3 February 2009 (talk)
The Time Traveler's Wife Movie
Hey, I just noticed that IMDB has updated the future release date of TTTW movie to Feb 2010. Do you know anything about it? - Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquigley13112 (talk • contribs) 11:53, February 21, 2009 (UTC)
Smile!
Watchmen
Wow, this must be what it was like when 2001 or Blade Runner or Fight Club came out. This is a good read. So, is it being captioned this weekend? Alientraveller (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure yet. The state where I go to school does not have rear-window captioning. There is an open-captioned theater an hour away; until Friday, it is screening Fired Up. I'm checking a website to find out if Watchmen will be captioned this Friday. Hopefully will find out by tomorrow morning, but my gut feeling is that it will be captioned next week or never. My spring break is coming up in a couple of weeks, though, and I am going to the East Coast, which has quite a few more theaters, especially in the Virginia and Maryland area. We'll see if I can find a theater with captioned Watchmen. (This should give me time to re-read it, anyway, with annotations!) And nice link! I found the Lee Iacocca blurb pretty surprising. That can't sit well with him, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw it, it was very worthy of its source material. The adaptation reminded me of Tony's copyediting guidelines: you got great content, but you get to the point in reiterating that story to others. I think the fact there were actors there, it started to put things in perspective, I felt more sympathy towards the Comedian and Rorschach while Manhattan came across as a bit gormless. Alientraveller (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- "I'm not a comic book villain." :) Alientraveller (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, no! Snyder can't read! It says "Republic serial villain"! :) I liked the film, but at the same time, I can see what negative reviews meant by adhering so closely to the source material. Loved all the Easter eggs, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or Hayter. Did your favorite characters not the ones from the source material? Rorshach or Nite Owl was my favourite in the film but not the novel. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, no! Snyder can't read! It says "Republic serial villain"! :) I liked the film, but at the same time, I can see what negative reviews meant by adhering so closely to the source material. Loved all the Easter eggs, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, Erik! Thanks for the advice. (I'm curious . . . how did you happen to see a message on my talk page?) I will initiate the discussion as you suggested, but am uncertain as to what happens next. Do I wait a reasonable amount of time to see if anyone responds and, if not, revert the information that was removed? Or do I revert it now and explain why on the discussion page? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I started a discussion at [1] if you care to comment. Thanks again. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expendables (2010 film) and was wondering if you might take a look at The Expendables (Film); do you have an opinion as to whether this ought to be speedied, or remain? Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was deleted per WP:NFF since filming was not underway. Since it has now begun, the article is warranted. I suggest moving the article to The Expendables (2010 film) and restoring the previous page history. Article could use some clean-up, too... —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but before I proceed, check out my talk page, where User:Bignole suggested a different course... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with Bignole's assessment. With the players in this film, there will undoubtedly be coverage, even if very little exists now. I think that WP:NFF is best applied for situations where a film is never actually pursued. For example, Pinkville had a notable director and a couple of notable actors attached, but since it never reached filming, it was just a few headlines relegated to a section in the article of the subject matter. For The Expendables, since it is filming with such major cast and crew, I really do not see a reason for the article not to exist now. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- My assessment is merely based on the wording of WP:NFF, which says that the production itself must be notable. If it said, "must be notable, or show evidence that it can be notable", then I would say go ahead. But if there is nothing to report on the movie beyond the people in it, why does it actually need a whole page to say that? The movie is filled with has-beens (God love in the 80s and 90s), but it isn't guaranteed to gain any press on the actual production of the film. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but does this need to be our lesson that just because a film is stacked with stars doesn't mean the film will get any coverage until after it is all completed filming and starts getting marketed? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- We need to follow the spirit of the guidelines. This is definitely a clear incidence of a film that has notability... it's underway, so whether or not there's enough coverage right now, there will be coverage to demonstrate clear notability and to provide enough content for a full-fledged film article. We don't have to be aggressive with deletion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion wasn't to delete, just merely move any reliably sourced information to Stallone's article, given that it's Stallone's film (one he's been working on for some time, according to the rumor mill). At the moment the existing page doesn't even have reliably sourced information (not to mention that it's at the wrong title). Based on this search, we can get an idea of who's going to be in the film, but I cannot find too much as far as actual production goes. Has the movie even started filming? My Google News is having trouble finding anything, and the closest I can get is from IMDb News, where in some interview a publicist or someone said that filming would begin later this month (March). It just seems a bit biased that we force most other movies to actually show notability in production, but give this one leeway merely because of the star power attached to it. My issue is not that the film might not get made, because I'm sure it will, but more that does a couple of sentences about who is going to be in the film actually warrant a whole separate page right now? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- We need to follow the spirit of the guidelines. This is definitely a clear incidence of a film that has notability... it's underway, so whether or not there's enough coverage right now, there will be coverage to demonstrate clear notability and to provide enough content for a full-fledged film article. We don't have to be aggressive with deletion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- My assessment is merely based on the wording of WP:NFF, which says that the production itself must be notable. If it said, "must be notable, or show evidence that it can be notable", then I would say go ahead. But if there is nothing to report on the movie beyond the people in it, why does it actually need a whole page to say that? The movie is filled with has-beens (God love in the 80s and 90s), but it isn't guaranteed to gain any press on the actual production of the film. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but does this need to be our lesson that just because a film is stacked with stars doesn't mean the film will get any coverage until after it is all completed filming and starts getting marketed? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with Bignole's assessment. With the players in this film, there will undoubtedly be coverage, even if very little exists now. I think that WP:NFF is best applied for situations where a film is never actually pursued. For example, Pinkville had a notable director and a couple of notable actors attached, but since it never reached filming, it was just a few headlines relegated to a section in the article of the subject matter. For The Expendables, since it is filming with such major cast and crew, I really do not see a reason for the article not to exist now. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but before I proceed, check out my talk page, where User:Bignole suggested a different course... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I just want to say: if this film is for real, I need to watch it so bad. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's like the cinematic version of this! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- . . . I think I might have to change my desktop image. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations
Tales of the Black Freighter
Could you help sort out attribution for this article, before I nominate it for DYK? It's built out of stuff from the comic and film articles. It'll probably be you, WesleyDodds, and me (I did the lead section) who are the "primary" authors. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on that article's talk page, making an article about both the source material from the comic and the DVD is problematic and unnecessary. We only need an article on the DVD. You can comment there about it if you like. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I really regret taking on the Watchmen article as a project. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't have regrets. You overhauled an article in great need of one in time for the film adaptation's release. If my anecdotal account of seeing people mention this was the first time they have heard of Watchmen, then they really had a great place to go to learn about it, if not the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I mean I am proud of the work that went into it (which I honestly could not have done without you), but the amount of effort that goes into maintaining it doesn't really balance out with the amount of satisfaction I get from working on it. You should see the talk page. My god. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Iron Man II
Do you think this photo of the set under construction with the director and cameraman mean Iron Man II now passes WP:NFF? Alientraveller (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite yet. Aren't sets constructed during pre-production? I would say it's pretty close, though. When is filming supposed to begin? I don't see anything at Iron Man (film)#Sequel. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Favreau said April on his twitter account I think. Alientraveller (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Fight Club
Hey there. I can't live with "crossing a milestone;" it isn't done. I'm trying ground-breaking. Which ref supports the claim about the film's political impact/influence?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- PS: Just curious. As a film fan, what did you think of The Watchmen?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- This says, "With Fight Club, Fincher emerged as the head of a new generation of film-makers who not only reflected a new mood in American political life (the Seattle anti-capitalist riots erupted two months after its release), but also embraced new developments in film-making technology that enabled advances in cinematic form and style. Fight Club stands alongside Magnolia, Being John Malkovich and Three Kings - all released in the same year - as evidence of this turning point." Feel free to tweak it to be more specific. I have yet to see Watchmen -- will be doing so tomorrow, hopefully -- but these are the films I've seen recently. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:Erik,
This film article got a C rating in the nominee.
Um... I've edited it more, and am wondering if I should add a Trivia section.
Because, Polly Draper (the writer and director of the film, and the boys' mom) is best known for her role on Thirtysomething; Michael Wolff is known for leading the band on The Arsenio Hall Show, it's not on topic of the film, but it's an important fact, so they might ring a bell for those reading it who was born in the baby boomers; Albie Hecht being the founder of Spike TV; and that this is Draper's directing debut and her screenwriting debut was with The Tic Code.
Would that be good on a Trivia section or should it be in a different category?
Oh, would you also know how to improve the article more then I did and, maybe, even if you could find more information for the Filming section that's a subcategory of Production.
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:TRIVIA; such sections are discouraged as the article develops. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your objection to my change to Valkyrie (Film). I thought those who watched the movie would be interested to know what parts in the film were historically accurate and what parts were changed. That Olbricht was the first to propose Valkyrie plan, that Eta von Tresckow and Margarette von Oven, etc are not my original research but related in history books such as History of German Resistance (Hoffmann). I don't understand your objection to the sources being pre-movie since there were no new development about what we know about Valkyrie since these books came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theilian (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your contributions to the film article are original research because they make novel connections between historical sources and the film itself. You are offering personally created items of value by offering factoids unrelated to the film in the context of the film. That's why I mentioned the sources being published before the film was released; it is demonstrably clear that such sources have no commentary about the film. This is only an argument to preempt the real issue because even if a book was published this year about Operation Valkyrie and did not mention the film at all, it still cannot be used in context of the film. If we personally compared and contrasted every item between historical sources and the film, it would be an indiscriminate list with no inherent way to demonstrate the significance of any point. That's why we only include comparisons and contrasts as published by independent authorities. That's why the "Historical accuracy" section explicitly compares and contrasts film and history. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Elections
Hi Erik, would you like to vote for me in the Wikiproject Film Coordinators Elections? Shamwow86 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)