User talk:Steve/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changeling[edit]

Hi, thanks for your note, but I checked both sources and one says it took him 12 days to write, and the other says "I spent a year researching and digging up old county courthouse records, city calls records and criminal records and finally pieced the whole thing together. I sat on it for a long time, and then one day, the structure just sort of cracked in my head, and I wrote down the draft that I eventually sold in about 11 days." -- I.e. it took him 11 days to write the draft he later sold. There's nothing about the speed at which it was sold (and hey, Ron Howard optioned it, he didn't buy it at first). As corroboration, I have a 4 page Creative Screenwriting interview with the writer where it also says it took 11 days to write. Have I missed the bit in the current sources where it mentions the speed of selling? Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry, it happens to the best of us:) Basically the quote says he researched for a year, then wrote quickly - and that interpretation makes sense. As I said, the CS interview is quiet unambiguous about 11 days, so I think the 12 day ref is a misprint and we can go with 11. Ta, Malick78 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell, I've been looking at the article, and you really have done a great job. I'm sure you'll be able to handle the "Reception" section admirably. Hope you'll be ready for the onslaught of coverage when this film is publicly released! If you want me to poke around for any print sources on Access World News or the like in that timeframe, just let me know. My only suggestion at this point is to ultimately cut back on the film festival mentions in the lead section when we know the overall reception of the film. Otherwise, very nice going! Have your eye on any other future films after this one? I think I'm going to be hands-off the future film articles for the time being... with graduate school in full swing, it's hard to tend or care for articles of films that may not be so great. Probably will be sticking around WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM and maybe get Fight Club up to par when I can. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to use {{cite web}} for the website, and after the brackets, maybe you could identify where on the website it is, like "Production notes under 'Background' section." In the meantime, you can keep an eye open for where the production notes could have been printed elsewhere. I noticed that it was released at Cannes -- Blindness was released there, too, and it has this PDF. Maybe Changeling has something similar?
Fight Club could definitely pass through FAC now, but I really would like to give it the royal treatment. There's so much information that I have at hand to really make the article shine. It's just a matter of figuring out how much of an academic citation to detail in the article, as some of them stretch over so many pages. Not to mention digesting the content in some regards... Deleuzian theory of temporality and spaciality, ya know? :D I really want to get this article ready by a year from today and have it on the front page for the film's 10th anniversary. After that... ah, I'll worry about it when the time comes. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve,
In reference to your question on User_talk:Dan_Dassow#Changeling_poster:
Yes, there was a discussion on the IMDb regarding similarities between the appearance Jason Butler Harner and Gordon Stewart Northcott. One of the people on the discussion is John Tobin, an actor who had a minor (and probably uncreditted) role in Changeling (film). Someone also posted a side-by-side comparison like this one.

Gordon Stewart Northcott:
Beyond this image of Northcott, there are a number of other pictures available at the Los Angeles Public Library via in their photo search catalog with the keyword "Northcott". Licensing information can be found here.

Note there are three pictures of Christine Collins in this collection.

Jason Butler Harner:
There is a still picture of Harner from Changeling at this website, but is considered spam by Wikipedia. http://aceshowbiz.com/still/00002886/changeling21.html

I believe there is another subconscious factor at work beyond the physical similarity. The names Jason Butler Harner and Gordon Stewart Northcott are both said with the same rhythm pattern.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the spelling corrections, I notice that you and Erik made a large number of edits in the last few days. I noticed that centrepiece was spelled that way in the lead and centerpiece in another section. (I've seen centrepiece / centerpiece spell both ways regarding the NYFF and had to check their website to be certain.) Since I was checking the spelling of one word, I thought it best to spell check the whole article. I simply copied the printable version of the article into Word and use the application spell check.--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to pictures of Jason Butler Harner is here.--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, congratulations on finding the URL for the production notes. Universal significantly upgraded their Official promotional website. It includes the three TV ads and other downloads.--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How didja find the direct link for the production notes? I spent too much time on the Flash-based website trying to figure out how I could dig out the URL. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call; I was trying to find something like that, but I was wary of downloading the wrong item for this loaner laptop. Definitely helps with the article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edit on Wineville Chicken Murders‎. I was considering making the change myself. The current statement if more accurate. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three items I thought you would find interesting:

Universal's Official Changeling website (http://www.changelingmovie.net/) now has foreign language trailers. Click on the flag at the bottom of the home page.

Top-to-bottom, left-to-right

1 Mexico - sub-titled
2 Spain - dubbed
3 France - sub-titled
4 Germany - dubbed
5 Italy - dubbed
6 Czech Republic - sub-titled
7 Brazil - sub-titled

8 Luxemburg - sub-titled
9 Portugal - sub-titled
10 Slovenia - sub-titled
11 Turkey - sub-titled
12 Hungary - sub-titled
13 Ukraine - dubbed
14 Finland - sub-titled

15 Greece - sub-titled
16 South Korea - sub-titled
17 Taiwan - sub-titled

At the bottom of Universal's Official Changeling there is also a link to
Historical coverage of the true story behind the Changeling in the LA Times Archives
http://www.latimesinteractive.com/advertising/changeling/Changeling-V4.html

The German language poster just came out. The art is different, and in my humble assessment, better than the English and French language posters.

Image: http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/changeling/changeling2_large.jpg
http://www.worstpreviews.com/media.php?id=946&image=1&place=posters&place2=poster

--Dan Dassow (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I reviewed the plot summary for Changeling (film) in your sandbox. From what I know about the film, the plot summary is accurate. Although I have not read the screenplay or seen the film, I've read enough about the case and virtually all of the reviews. I will review the plot summary again after I see Changeling on Friday.


German poster for Changeling.
Der Fremde Sohn
Um ihr Kind zu finden,
folgte sie unbeirrt ihrem Weg.
eine wahre Geschichte

Official German Changeling website: http://www.der-fremde-sohn-film.de
(Note: this currently re-directs to Universal's German website).

According to http://www.universal-pictures-international-germany.de/, the German premiere is January 22, 2008.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Hi Steve, SandyGeorgia asked me to take a look at you as a potential admin candidate. She asked me to review you because I've developed a little bit of a reputation for how I vet candidates. I'll spend about 2-6 hours reviewing potential candidates for potential issues that might doom an RfA and assessing whether or not I think a person would be a good admin or not. Sandy wants me to look at you, but before I do so, I wanted to find out if it was something you were interested in? At first look, I don't see anything that will doom you (except for your having one of those annoying Talk Pages where you respond on the other person's talk page---that makes following conversations EXTREMELY difficult.) If you want me to check out, let me know (here).---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I saw your message this morning, but I've been out most of the day and didn't want to craft a reply that was rushed and ill-considered before I left. Thanks for the offer to vet my candidacy, but I'd likely decline any nomination for adminship right now. While I'd consider a nomination at some point in the future, at the moment I don't have the time to devote to the RfA process in as thorough a manner as I'd prefer. I've also just been elected as a coordinator at Wikiproject Films, and my limited time here will, for now, be focused more upon the duties that role brings, alongside catching up with some much-needed article-building and clean-up on forthcoming cinema releases. While I've developed a reputation for maturity and think I show good judgement, should I reconsider in a few months I know that my contributions will come under scrutiny. To save you some time looking for things I've said and done that could "doom" such a candidacy, there are three main occasions I can think of where I believe that judgement has let me down, and I'll list them here for future reference:
  • Here is when I panicked after being subject to an incitement to real-life harassment at an off-Wiki messageboard. It was an overreaction, and I should have handled the whole affair better. However, it taught me a good lesson, and I pretty much stand by any edit or opinion expressed since this date.
  • My dispute mediation at Michel Thomas soon after I joined Wikipedia in July 2007 is something I'm largely proud of. Before I entered the fray, the article was subject to a three-year edit war, and it is now completely stable. However, towards the end, I think I was guilty of favouring one side over the other, while attempting to remain on-the-surface dispassionate, and a read through of the talk page archives would probably reveal this.
  • Full disclosure: my first ever edit to Wikipedia, before I really knew anything about the place, was this piece of vandalism. Never repeated, but there it is for all to see. The subsequent contributions by that IP address are all me, and as far as I can tell were times when I forgot to log in or had cleared my cookies after logging in. None were subversions of WP:3RR or "bad hand" actions.
Thanks again, Steve T • C 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, which is why I wanted to check with you before devoting the time to investigate ya. Anyway, if you decide you want to run, and have somebody vet ya first, let me know.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, when you decide to go for admin, I will vote a strong positive in the RfA. It has been my pleasure working with you on various articles.--Dan Dassow (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would suggest, if you have any interest in running for Admin in the future, please start responding to conversations on the page where they originate. When you respond on the other person's webpage, it makes it very difficult to follow a conversation---especially when more than 1 other person is involved. It also makes it easier to see A) that you respond to people and B) if somebody accuses you of something to see your side of the issue. There was one candidate who I vetted that if it wasn't for Sandy's recommendation, I would have rejected wholesale due to the numerous accusations of vandalism/POV pushing. When I investigated further, I realized that he was neither, that the people who accused him of such were the POV pushers. But if I didn't look at their pages I would have never seen his response and obtained a complete picture.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, if you decide to stand, I'll be glad to nom, and I don't think Balloonman and I have had one go south yet :-) I brought it up now because there's some discussion at WT:RFA that there is a real shortage of admins currently. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. Thanks for your offer, it really is appreciated. Especially after the disclosure of my initial vandalism. As I say, it's probably come at just the wrong time for me in terms of the time I'd be able to devote to the process and (if successful) the tasks the role might bring. It could also be a dereliction of the duties I have as newly-elected coordinator at Wikiproject Films if I were to then spend too much time away from that project, and I wouldn't want it to look as if I'd merely gone for the position to use it as a stepping stone to a "position of authority". Thanks again, and be assured that I'll come calling on you in the future when I have more time on my hands. All the best, Steve T • C 08:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, unwatching now ... you know where to find me ... all the best ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changeling source[edit]

Hi, I'd love to help you out with the Creative Screenwriting magazine, but I don't have access to a scanner to send you the article unfortunately. Can't Borders or someone order you a copy? Malick78 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated election congrats![edit]

It is a great pleasure to see you elected as a coordinator, and I look forward to working with you! I've presented an opening slate of items, and your comments are requested. (Additionally, if you haven't already, you must add the coordinator talk page to your watchlist.) Congrats and speak soon, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fight Club[edit]

You make a good point about revising Rotten Tomatoes. I was actually scouring LexisNexis Academic this morning and emailed myself over 50 articles from 1999, mostly reviews (with some being possibly new production information). Do you think that we should narrow the usage of RT to solely Top Critics? Or treat Top Critics as more contemporary and the overall score more retrospective? How about Metacritic? I am considering revising the section anyway before getting to work on academic journals. Might be a bit long, but I want to break it up into objective segments. Geography or publication type, maybe? I have to say that I wish I didn't go back and look for more academic journals... apparently I've stepped up in researching, being able to dig up quite a few more. I really need to put together a schedule for this article if I want it to be FA of the Day by its 10th anniversary. :) Any interest at all in helping, based on the journals and their titles? I was considering combining "Filmmakers' themes" with these and keeping it on one article, spinning off later if necessary. For example, we can include the filmmakers' stance on masculinity then show what others have said. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure if I want to specify the inner workings of a website any more than we usually do. We already established the general reception of film critics for when the film premiered, and we already established that it has become a cult film with some cultural impact (ranking highly in film magazines). What about the possibility of excluding both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic from the article body? They will still be in the external links. It may be worth reviewing MOS:FILM to shore up how to use RT and MC.
For breaking up the reception section, I agree that it would seem arbitrary. Let me ask a question: How important is it to convey the entire opinion of a film critic? I've tended to "balance" one's statements, but I was thinking, with the abundance of reviews from LexisNexis Academic, maybe we could quote groups of reviewers about the film's message, the characterizations, the directing style. I don't think that contemporary reviews will be needed for a "Themes/Analysis" section since we have an abundance of academic sources that explore the film in-depth from various angles. You can see what I have saved, so I can share via Google Groups if you want. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! Where do I start? :) First, I think I have the tendency to want to include as much information as possible about a film, although I am realistic about what details are indiscriminate or not. When it comes to academic journals, it's really hard to do that because there is a lot of great content, judging from the few I've read in the past. I think that chances are high that "Themes in the film Fight Club" will be needed (I was only thinking of "Interpretations" because I was originally preferring to keep the filmmakers' perspective separate).
You are definitely right about how I want to avoid original research. :) Same goes for weasel wording because I don't like citing two critics and saying everyone thought Brad Pitt did a great job. That's why I aim for retrospective coverage, and I hope that there will be some in these academic journals before they do their analysis, so there will be a nicely-sized overview paragraph for "Critical reception". It can be followed by the groupings of reviews about various aspects of the film. For academic journals, though, I suppose it's harder for me to sound more "factual" about opinions. You can see how I wrote the three paragraphs in my sandbox based on the film's heteronormative DVD presentation. Any thoughts on that?
You hit the nail on the head by saying that focusing on one part burns me out... you can tell from the section I wrote, full stop. :) I will try your suggestion; isn't that considered right-brain thinking? I remember an editor talking to me about that a while ago about writing what you know about a film in its lead section, then run down the details. (I always did it the other way, apparently being left-brained.) As for likely categories, I think that masculinity will be the overarching theme for the most part. There's a lot of sub-themes related to it, from what I can tell... homosexuality, victimization, etc. Other themes may be society in general (one article was deep into Deleuzian theory of spatiality and temporality, that probably killed my previous attempt), religion, and violence. Possibly some punk and Gothic exploration, too. A man named Giroux has apparently touched on Fight Club three or four times in his writings, so he's the one person who I know will be covered. To be honest, though, I am a little too swamped in real life right now to plunge into this work, shallowly or otherwise. Do you think it's too much to print a whole batch of these out and do the broad commentary? Not sure how much paper my town even has, haha... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that's where the discussion was! I saw a mention of this universal citation template somewhere a couple of days ago. From what I can tell, it looks like a good idea -- it must be a beast to code, though! Gotta love the "voting" that's already going on; one editor blamed the Presidential election, haha. I agree that the templates can be frustrating... just used one for The Road (film), and I'm all mixed up about how to identify The Hollywood Reporter and Reuters. In response to your comments about writing the reception, I understand what you mean. I think I might have to sandbox a list of reviews with selected quotes from each to really gauge that kind of thing. (Most reviews are mostly plot detail with reviewers being creative in writing them, especially if they hate the film.) Looking at Changeling (film), I kind of wonder if it's too soon to tighten the web of reviews for this film. Like someone complained on Hancock (film), the lock-in of reviews makes it difficult to edit. I don't think it's as much of an issue after a film's release, but that kind of tightening may discourage editor involvement. Writing this reception section has always been tricky, and I don't know if I fully endorse your method. Maybe I'm used to having a plethora of opinions... ah, that's why I want to see what I can do with Fight Club (film). I wouldn't mind the tightening, but I'd like to ensure that people don't think that there's not enough opinion (especially with reviewers being repeated). For Fight Club, you probably know my Gmail, so we could set up either Google Groups or Google Documents where I can put up these resources to be shared. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Core list[edit]

No, not at all. Alientraveller (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this for anyone seeing this, btw, this is no preferential treatment for an editor with whom I've worked; during/after sending this I thought it might be a good idea to leave similar messages on the talk pages of as many 0.7 core list articles or their primary editors as I could, to see what improvements/tweaks could be made before October 20. But I think that'll be unworkable with the time there is left. Steve T • C 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Prod of The Human Factor (2009 film)[edit]

Aka I'm dumb. I removed your proposed deletion, thinking I could salvage the article. Well, now I can't find that the film has even begun filming yet, so it doesn't meet notability criteria. Oops! If you want to add it to Articles for Deletion, please feel free, and I apologize for jumping the gun on this and causing you possible extra work in the nomination for deletion. raven1977 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Batman (1989 film)[edit]

The article is up for A-class reviews. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have addressed the A-class comments. Wildroot (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but feel free to "endorse" it (I need three of those) to pass off for A-class. Or you can address further comments. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you yet again, but there have been three endorsements. However, the discussion must be closed by a lead coordinator, and you are a lead coordinator. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can open/close if the review clearly has the required three-vote margin in favor, and if there are no reviews clearly in process. One thing that I should note, however, is that any FAC concerns should be addressed at A-class: while we're more content-driven, that doesn't make us blind to other issues, especially if they require substantial work to address if brought up at FAC. Our goal for A-class is to polish the article, with an expert's eye, as much as possible, so that an A-class article can more or less cruise through FAC. Essentially, the measure of our success in A-class is not the A-class review pass/fail rate, but the FAC pass/fail rate for A-class articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making this discussion more complicated is the fact that I have addressed almost all of the FAC concerns and improvements you listed. Wildroot (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In praise of a job well done![edit]

For extraordinary editing on Shane (film). Keep up the great work! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sorry, but I've had to remove the barnstar. I didn't expand the article. I just reverted to a previous version. Thanks anyway. :D Steve T • C 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well...still, I think you're great! Since I am in a Father Christmas mood, I hope you can accept this offering:

Ecoleetage (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Human Factor (2009 film)[edit]

The proper call on the article. As I stated at the AfD, I have a better copy saved in a workspace and will br glad to bring it to mainspace when it will then be worth having. A "delete without prejudice' serves wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hi Steve: it's great to see your input at FAC. I've just asked for a "Quick-fail" at "Veronica Mars" because of the dreadful prose; by this, I mean that it was a premature nomination and will require far too much scarce reviewer-resources to fix in the tight timeframe of the FAC list (it bloats very easily).

May I suggest that you consider a similar declaration when in such a situation, seeing even more issues than those raised by the excellent Ealdgyth? More opposes and quick-fails might seem like harsh medicine, but it's tough love to maintain a culture at FAC that is conducive to high standards, good preparation (i.e., not using it as a free advice page), a reasonably prompt process, and a list that is under control. Reviewers tend to be turned off when the list is huge.

Cheers and thanks. Tony (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Reel[edit]

On behalf of a grateful project, congrats!

It is my honor, as the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Films, to give you the inaugural conferral of the WikiProject Service Award, Second Class - the Silver Reel. Awarded for meritorious service in completing the entirety of your 0.7 worklist. Most gratefully, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michael Rudd[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Rudd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF as it pertains to incomplete films[edit]

Was wondering if you could consult on this? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for the help at WP:FAC. For future reference, you could have just removed the listing at WP:FAC and moved it into the archive file; if the {{fac}} stayed on the page, Gimmebot would complete the process later (adding archive tags, removing the {{fac}} tag and completing articlehistory). I *think* the bot would have stalled since you did part (well, most!) of its work, so I went ahead and completed articlehistory just in case. The cheat sheet is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Withdrawn by nominator FACs, with the full-blown botification steps at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps. Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, also follow the conversation at User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings as we sort this. Gimme is back, but we have some items to sort still. Thanks, Steve !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no need to apologize at all, Steve; it was an example that helps us sort the issues and decide how to best move forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Torino[edit]

Wasn't sure if you were a Clint Eastwood fan or not, but Gran Torino is the next one out, and the article sure could use some love. Any interest in collaboration? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have not looked at any source related to the film (too busy IRL to keep up-to-date with all the film news), but I was thinking, with the release of Changeling, there might be some talk about Gran Torino. Can you show me the sources that say it's a new Dirty Harry? Seems a little silly from what you say, considering the film's premise. What, he's a badass that kicks Korean butt? I think that Eastwood would be a little more introspective than that. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha now, I missed the word "initial". I was wondering how the heck the premise could be twisted to assume that. I've just incorporated a USA Today article to start us off with the premise and the two main cast members. Was wondering, are you a little disappointed that Changeling has not been warmly received? The article sure made it sound like it was a piece of work. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was not trying to be sarcastic about "piece of work"; the film really sounded worthwhile based on its background. I probably will not catch it in theaters, but I will definitely check it out on DVD. I poked around for Gran Torino news, but there does not seem to be a ton of coverage. Just a lot of little details that could be pulled together. I checked JMS' credentials, and there's nothing going on except Ninja Assassin. No idea what to expect from that one. Wachowskis seem to have peaked with the first Matrix; after that, nothing quite as grand. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read World War Z and loved it. Is the script written to be a documentary film? Seems like it would be tricky to convey some of the experiences since not everyone was carrying cameras. I liked V for Vendetta, too, but from what I understood, it romanticized V too much. The original comic book portrayed V as a little more terrifying, and obviously, the film got a contemporary update. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen Changeling have you? Alientraveller (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do people find these things? I'd love to discover scripts of unmade films. Alientraveller (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VI discussion[edit]

Was it State of Play that nearly died on the table a week before production? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this thing goes "no consensus" due to mobbing (bc I don't see much in the way of policy&guideline argument...everyone always wants to be the exception), then maybe we just pack this in for a month or so until the publicity dies down and then bring it back with a less hyped up, more representative group of editors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter FAC[edit]

Got your message about Harry Potter being nominated for FAC. It probably could use more work before being accepted as a featured article. Maybe I'll work on it. Thanks!PNW Raven (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future films[edit]

Looks like the tracking system will draw us back into the fold of the future films department! :) I've written a "Tracking" section for the department's page, and when reviewing what else to revise, I thought that maybe we should have an in-depth essay about why WP:NFF is appropriate. (Thought this especially after the comments by you and Girolamo at the Saw AFD.) It might be a good way to explain the fallacies of expectations for filming to actually begin. That way, we don't have to repeat our arguments again and again. We could point to it and copy parts of it to a relevant discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage background[edit]

Steve, both your user page and discussion page look fine to me. --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changeling (film)[edit]

You've done an amazing job with the article! Keep up the great work! But, I'm sure you've got plenty more like it :) Cheers! Gary King (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about Fight Club. :P For Changeling, I was wondering, could "Analysis" possibly become "Themes" and be placed above "Reception"? It just seems like "Analysis" is more ambiguous than "Themes" and that it flows better to go, "These are the themes the film had, and with that, this is how it has been received." —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess it could be argued either way. Your explanation suffices, too. What about the section heading, though? "Analysis" strikes me as a little inaccurate since the section meshes Eastwood's intended themes to what critics have perceived. That's why I thought "Themes" might be more suitable. As for organizing sections, I guess my perspective is that many years down the road, the information in the "Release" section is more contemporary whereas "Analysis"/"Themes" would be more timeless and serve as the result of the film's production (following the "Production" section). When I start on themes for Fight Club, I plan to keep the section where it is and expand there, spinning off in due time. Not really wanting to do a preemptive spin-off until there is some serious substance to export. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum of Solace and disambiguation[edit]

If you can get an admin to do that, please do that...or start a discussion on the page. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it'd slide in a GAC/FAC if I used this article to write up a reception section? Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow. And you? Alientraveller (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Craig is hardly as ancient as Moore was when he made his last two films. What's stopping one from seeing it without one's partner? Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried fixing that but I don't know what's up with it. Should you contact WP:BOND? Alientraveller (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Non-breaking spaces and the em dash[edit]

Yeah, well, the folks who wrote that section in WP:MOS simply got it wrong. The em-dash and en-dash are normally treated as non-breaking characters. By not having spaces before and after them, if they tie two long words together, it can cause havoc in narrow columns. It's considered bad typographic form to break a line before a hyphen, em-dash or en-dash, so that's why I put a non-breaking space before the em-dash and en-dash in my edits. (At least that's what I was taught in 1971 in my high school typing class by Miss Engdahl, a business school graduate.) In commercial work you'll never see a line break before one of these characters, unless the typesetter screwed up. So, what's left? The only conclusion we can come to is put a non-breaking space before the em-dash and en-dash, with a normal space after them. Maybe the committees that edit WP:MOS will eventually see the error of their ways and correct the situation. —QuicksilverT @ 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldboy Poster[edit]

Hi, since you seem to be one of the coordinators of the film WikiProject, I was wondering if you could lend your opinion on a discussion concerning which poster should be used for the article. Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dates[edit]

Well, it seems like it has been argued that ISO dating does not clarify to readers what it could be, especially with months and days switched around... for example, is 2008-06-05 June 6, 2008 or 6 May 2008? Writing it out like that makes it consistent to the formatting used throughout the article. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I saw that Variety article. I approve! :) It was a pretty entertaining book, and I hope they find a good way to do it documentary-style. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, them's fighting words, bloke! Have you seen Quantum of Solace yet? I am probably not going to be able to catch it till DVD, being too busy in real life. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen[edit]

Steve, could you read this article about the legalities of the film and summarise it for me? You're very good at explaining technical things like this clearly. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it, thanks. Alientraveller (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Teetotaler. Alientraveller (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Scottish, but you learn something new every day. Alientraveller (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changeling Article[edit]

It's fabulous. Thank you. Wikipedia should thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.29.159 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrath of Khan reappraisal[edit]

Hey, since I withdrew the FAC I've gotten a couple articles from InterLibraryLoan and have added substantially to the production section of the article. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and see if it meets your criteria now. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm running through the sources on the article talk page; a few are pending, and some I just can't get either way. Take your time, I'm in no hurry :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Featured Articles[edit]

I think my issue has more to do with that editors tend to be complacent in developing Featured Articles about films that have long-term relevance. I agree with your assessment about how Featured Articles for recent films should be approached, but I guess it seems like a Featured Article is considered "done" most of the time. Such an article can be useful in sharing information as reported in its contemporary time frame. It seems to me that the real value lies in significant, retrospective coverage. Maybe I am getting my head all wrapped up in themes, but after digging up so many on Fight Club and recently Dark City (resources), I just find a lot information that would really impact someone's understanding of the film, as opposed to "Oh, that's cool" moments (which I enjoy myself, don't get me wrong). I don't know what the best way to tell if an articles has longer-term promise, but a few factors seem to stand out. Films that clearly have a deeper reading (like the ones you mentioned) and have garnered some accolades, films that gain a cult following, mainstream films that are based on historical events, and Hollywood blockbusters. I think that even Transformers has some additional potential. Yes, it's a fun film, but at the same time, a film that makes such a big splash can serve as commentary on society. I poked around for coverage related to Transformers, and I found three that talked about entertainment violence in a post-9/11 world. I was only able to access one, Film Quarterly, and here's what it said:

A Good Article is defined as "articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality". The latter statement is what has stood out for me. You're not going to see something like Surf Ninjas become a Featured Article, and I guess I am hesitant to say more information from that contemporary time frame qualifies the article. I know that Featured Articles of the Day sometimes attract people who bitch about the subject matter like a video game article that does not have more than 30 KB of content... I don't join them in their diatribes, but it just seems like there needs to be something more in some cases. I don't know if you were around when Bignole and I debated with Awadewit about themes, but the editor left me with a change of heart in realizing that films were artistic mediums (as opposed to a biographical article or a corporate article), even where they may not seem like it at times (torture porn films, for instance). I guess I feel a need to be heavy-handed in FAC processes, so I avoid them as not to be a Debbie Downer... I can tell when I dig up resources that could be used for the article that the editors haven't tried to do more than scratch the surface. A lot of editors use easy-to-find resources to build up articles either due to lack of access or due to not knowing about looking behind them. Just seems like an article can be built based on the whole spectrum of resources; it's not supposed to be easy to get the star. That's why I keep being bullish about Fight Club... now that I know the stuff is out there, I make it a bigger mission for myself. I know that not everything will fit, so I will consolidate where possible, but the resources, as you may have seen, deserve a look.

And by the way, I was actually finishing up the last episode of Season 1 of Mad Men last night... was watching most of it this past weekend. I really do like the show! It can feel misogynistic, and I keep telling myself, that is the intent of the show, it is not like films of the 1990s or even today playing to the gender stereotypes that go on. Definitely will keep up with it! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the gushing feedback that you got from that one editor for Changeling, I think the approach to themes has done at least one person a great service. I think that most developed film articles have themes woven throughout the body, whether what the filmmakers intend through production or what film critics perceive (like honor and loyalty). I don't think that it is too difficult to have this thematic presence in a film article, but for some films, the presence could be more explicit and detailed. When I say detailed, I don't mean detailed in mimicking the writing style of many of these academic journals. I mean detailed enough to give readers a gist of each different theme in the film and possibly provide them access to other topics, like mise en scène or heteronormativity. There is probably a line that is crossed, such as having a paragraph for each of the Fight Club references I have available to me. It's hard for me to say much since I have yet to venture into that kind of challenge, so I'll get back to you with my thoughts after I go through these references. :)
I agree that the Mad Men characters are not supposed to be too likable; it's a weird feeling to adapt to. It's not some wishy-washy problem, either... Don Draper, for instance, has deep-seated problems with his own existence. I have to admit I grinned at the presence of Ayn Rand. I think that it is a running joke among my peers that Rand literature is seductive for younger people, and not necessarily in a good way. I just looked up the article... the second season went by, huh? I'll have to look out for the next DVD set. I just accepted a full-time job that was offered to me this week, so I suppose I can invest in a DVR for the long term. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steve/Archive_4&oldid=1079258852"