Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film)

Archives

• /Archive 1

fix link (broke by move of article?) Naaman Brown (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

There's currently a tedious back-and-forth battle going on in the Controversy section, between 24.18.239.200 (who's been adding comments on what Hines said or did, without citing reliable sources), and 71.210.220.162 (who's been adding comments on Hines being a liar, without citing reliable sources). As of now, this section contains five references, only one of which (an article at videobusiness.com) has anything like direct relevance to a "controversy". I'm considering purging the section entirely, so if anyone has good reasons why that shouldn't happen, now's the time to discuss it. Thanks.--Nalvage 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable because a large (ass load, if you want my specific term) portion of the attention this film has gotten was/is mainly due to what Hines has said and claimed. I can produce some sources for some of this - Hell, even some that specifically use the word "controversy", but it may take time in trying to track some of this down as I have to figure out what got started on a forum somewhere and what are legitimite claims. I'll try to random searches in betweens things to prove that there's some merit. Let me know if this is acceptable. --Bacteria 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are good sources out there, excellent. My fear was that it didn't get beyond message board claims and counter-claims, and that removing the section would be the only way to stop it devolving further into a he-said-she-said anecdotal evidence fest. I'm not part of the fandom, or clear where this controversy may have been covered, but I'll see if I can rustle anything up myself. --Nalvage 16:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.syfyportal.com/news421674.html and http://www.syfyportal.com/news422156.html look useful. --Nalvage 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to integrate the information in the first link into the article and/or tag it as a source sometime soon. The second one is actually in the external links section, but I'll see if I can fit it in as well. The confusion in some of this is that forums (namely those of the three oft-visted War of the Worlds sites and the IMDb page) is where Hines' comments and actions have really been picked apart, and am sure have entire threads dedicated to debunking and ridiculing his claims. So the hard part is getting to what are actual statements on his behalf. It's not like he's been less than suspicious in all of this, but I'm sure some of this has been blown out of proporition or even entirely fabricated by pissed off fans. --Bacteria 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've revised this section again as old articles have vanished from the web. I've removed anything that I can't find a source for. Mark Grant (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:LINKROT, it's best not to delete refs, just to indicate that their URLs are {{deadlink}}s, and seek copies from web.archive.org. We assume good faith about cited sources.

Necro-update: Archive copies of the above SyFyPortal sources: www.syfyportal.com/news421674.html www.syfyportal.com/news422156.html --00:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

$42 million?

The article says that Hines had raised $42 million from Microsoft employees: I'm not aware of any evidence of this other than Hines' claims. If that's the case, I don't think it should be phrased in that manner, and earlier in the article it says 'Hines claimed' when referring to the same sum, rather than stating it as a fact. Mark Grant 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern or period

Can someone who's seen the film edit the article? The introduction says it's a modern retelling set in Seattle, the synopsis says it's a period piece set in Victorian England. I'm fairly sure it's set in Victorian England, but not having seen the film myself, I don't want to make a cock up. Optimus Sledge 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. I blame myself because when I did the initial draft of the production history, I seemed to have done what I always do - work on an floating assumption, that being that everyone knew they changed directions from modern to loyal adaptation. I addressed this both in the production history and intro so, hopefully, this makes it soundly clear. --Bacteria 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

There seem to be a lot of screenshots on this page which don't meet the fair use licensing requirements for 'identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents'. Does anyone have any opinion as to which should stay and which should be removed? I think it's hard to claim that more than a fraction of them are being used in a valid manner here, though I'm willing to be convinced. Mark Grant 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If no-one else has any opinion I'm going to remove about half of them shortly, because right now it seems like overkill. Mark Grant 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at the other War of the Worlds movie pages and they have far less images than this one. I've removed all but the most significant, and put most of them into a gallery showing examples of the movie effects shots, which seems relevant to the discussion of critical reaction to those effects. Hopefully what we have is now fair use. Mark Grant 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims

There are a lot of unsourced claims in the 'Controversy' section, some of which have been flagged for months, and I've just added a couple more. Is there any reason why we should keep them if people can't find a source for them after they've been flagged for so long? Mark Grant 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed those too. Feel free to add them back if you have a source to support them. Mark Grant 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Budget

Can people please stop changing the budget to $5,000? Now, I can certainly believe the movie was made for that amount, but unless you can cite a reliable source, it's just going to keep getting deleted. Mark Grant (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PendragonWotWposter.jpg

Image:PendragonWotWposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is FUBAR

It looks like Timothy Hines or someone from Pendragon has been edting the hell out of this article. There is such a riduculous amount of mis-information that it has become useless as a reference. Someone needs to some in and clean up this mess or this article needs to be deleted. Andy120290 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some tidying, but it could certainly do with more. I don't think I've made anything worse than it was, and removed a bunch of duplicated and uncited information, while adding cites for some others; of course most of the sources in the article are interviews with people involved in the production, which may not be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Mark Grant (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Accuracy

Now, it appears to me that what is regarded by many as the film's main saving grace is how true it is to the novella. I've actually read the story, and the thing that hit me was how different it was to the film... Some scenes in the film, like the guy getting locked in the shed, are nothing more that throw-away muses of the narrator in the book warranting nothing more than a couple of lines. Also, I don't recall seeing so much walking in the book. Obviously, when you create a screenplay, you have to change elements of the story so that they "look" right, but it seems as though key bits have been left out whilst other more trivial stuff has been featured. The "Black smoke" (the key weapon in the Martian's arsenal) is barely touched upon. also, the reason that the highly localised invasion of the south east of England is regarded as a war of "Worlds" is partially due to the development(by the Martians) of heavier than air flight during the course of the conflict, thus potentially enabling the hostilities to spread to other countries. I'll go back and re-read the book just to make sure that I am not going loopy... Paul-b4 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dark Horse

I removed the section about Pendragon's statements about the Dark Horse settlement on their web site; I can't find it on the current web site, and can't find any reliable source elsewhere.

I did find a few mentions which imply that it was true, but without a source that we can cite, I think it has to go. To be honest, it's probably too much detail in any case, the remaining paragraph pretty much sums up what happened. Mark Grant (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: This has been out and in a few times. Anyways, the settlement announcement page is archived at web.archive.org, as listed in the citation; now the news source and the primary source agree. If a WP:RS is found which refutes, we'll revisit. Yet another argument for avid use of WebCitation to capture pages used as sources in articles - it's for easy future revivification of dead links, and they don't have an embargo period! --Lexein (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative reviews

I noticed that someone changed the intro from 'mostly negative' reviews to 'mostly mixed'; I can't see any justification for that change, though I wonder whether that line should be in the article at all as it's rather subjective unless you only look at articles which give some kind of star rating. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, has four reviews and three of them look negative to me. Mark Grant (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

John L. Flynn book

The Flynn book is used as a source for the film's budget of "approximately $25 million" (p.111). It also states "somewhere in the mid 20-millions" (p.108). Neither figure is listed as a quote, nor are sources cited. The book is self published: Galactic Books (hosted at a free hosting provider) hosts only Flynn's books, Galactic's address (Owings Mills,MD) is the same city as that listed by Flynn, and I'll let the partially correct but also abusively wrong "Michael Valdivielso" review of the book at Amazon speak for itself. Bottom line: is this a WP:RELIABLE enough source for the film's budget? Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, pick a different word than "Dispute"

Pendragon did dispute with Dark Horse. Historical fact, not "agenda." Yes, it's resolved. And sourced. So, we report the whole thing, sourced, neutrally. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground, nor a P.R. outlet. All companies have warts. It is in _everyone's_ best interest not to shy away from the simple, unvarnished verifiable, sourced, truth. Here, it makes Pendragon look good, for publicly acknowledging the end of the issue. IMHO. Another example: Vonage. That company once tried to, but stopped, attacking that article, but instead has tried for NPOV wherever possible, no matter how bad the reported news. If I have read the article history correctly. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dark Horse (again)

In this edit, an anonymous IP user edit summarized "This is placed here by a cyberbully who is a business competitor and has made himself a self appointed steward over this page. The statements are defametory and untrue. This was a legal case that was settled privately". This edit summary is false (except for the last statement). I am not a cyberbully, and have never engaged in any such behavior, as supported by my edit history. I am an impartial, independent, volunteer Wikipedia editor, the facts of the claims are true and supported by primary and secondary sources (including Pendragon's own website - see the footnotes), nothing here is defamatory, the details of the settlement are not detailed, only the announcement that there was a settlement. Facts straight, the section, in my opinion should remain. It's part of the history of the development of the film, and goes to the nature of the complexities of the development process. --Lexein (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it - should the IP remove it again, I suggest we treat it as vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given it some thought. We can paraphrase, or we can quote. In my opinion, the paraphrase of the press release is considerably less inflammatory than a direct quote. I did not even cite the press release directly, considering its title too inflammatory. Here's the ref, which I will not revert if inserted:

"Did Dark Horse Comics Rip Off Pendragon's WAR OF THE WORLDS?". thefreelibrary.com. PR Newswire (Farlex Inc.). July 26, 2006. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Did+Dark+Horse+Comics+Rip+Off+Pendragon%27s+WAR+OF+THE+WORLDS%3F-a0148648422.  Press release. (Also at HighBeam Research.)

My choice to quote the settlement announcement was to address the press release and the web image comparison in one go, concisely, without bias, or repetition of the competition's name, or lengthy paraphrase. Matter of fact, I still can't think of a shorter, fairer paraphrase to replace the quote. Anyways, in my opinion, apology for any possible misunderstanding does not imply wrongdoing, just good sportsmanship. --Lexein (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)