Talk:Starship Troopers (film)

Comparison with the novel

I added a little less than 100 words to this section to flesh out exactly what the primary deviations were. Looking at the end result it appears to satisfy WP:UNDUE nicely. Please discuss changes before making them. Rapier (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a related discussion that may be worth review. The way I see it a problem is that you're claiming that the differences you list are primary, but really it should be third-party sources establishing what differences are considered primary. Doniago (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, and I completely agree. I was at work when I wrote that and I'll be happy to remove that edit until I can find the sources that gave that analysis. I'll also look at that discussion. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As per that discussion, would you agree that a simple examination of primary sources would allow any reasonable person to see that two "differences" (NOT the "primary", I agree, that wording needs to be changed) would be what I listed? The section itself is titled "Comparison with the novel", and other than saying "there are many differences" it really doesn't say anything. I feel that trying to summarize every single change (even the major ones) between the film and novel would create a serious WP:UNDUE issue, but at least by listing the two I mentioned a person can get a feel for how the book and novel differ. While I also will agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to edit articles in a particular way, I don't feel that the Starship Troopers article is weakened by mentioning the differences between the novel and film without a secondary source. Thoughts? Rapier (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd still be concerned that if we start mentioning specific differences without sourcing to back up their significance that we're implying they're more significant than other differences between the two works. I'm not saying I'd undo your addition or anything...it could depend on how it's written... I suppose a statement like, "Some differences include x, y and z," might be okay. Also, I'm writing this fairly late at night for me, and as evidenced by the number of corrections I just made to my own comment this should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. I'll also be the first to acknowledge I can be a bit pedantic about this. That being said, I very much appreciate your level-headedness while we discuss this! Doniago (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting a little late for me too. I'll try a better sentence tomorrow. Isn't it sad when a level-headed discussion is the exception as opposed to the rule? Have a good evening and happy editing! Rapier (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: AT THIS POINT I'M REMOVING THE NICKNAME FROM MY POSTINGS. SeanNovack (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a depressingly large number of editors get amazingly overwrought when anything is done to their edits, regardless of reasoning...and they normally don't bother to ask what the reasoning was before becoming overwrought. I would guess finding movie reviews mentioning the (lack of) powered armor wouldn't be too difficult; finding comments from the film crew regarding its exclusion would probably be trickier. Anyway, thanks again for your eminently reasonable tone during the discussion, and I hope we can find a good compromise! Doniago (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft of new paragraph edit: "There are many differences between the original book and film, some of these include:

• The novel features an all-male Mobile Infantry and very little actual combat is shown, while the film focuses on heavy action scenes and the love triangle with Jonnie, Dizzy and Carmen.
• The novel is told exclusively from Jonnie's point of view describing his hero's journey from indifferent high school student (Appreciation of Television is listed on his transcript) to elite "cap trooper", and details the maturation process that entails.
• The film changes point-of-view focus between Jonnie and Carmen (who in the novel never had any relationship beyond friendship).
• The absence in the film of the "power armor" that was a central plot device in the novel, and had an entire chapter devoted to its description and use."

All of these differences are plain simply by looking at the primary sources, there is no judgement as to whether or not is is a "good" or "bad" change, and no POV judgement that these are the most important differences. In a section titled "Comparison with the novel", there really does need to be more than just "there are many differences" Thoughts? SeanNovack (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other editors, but this strikes me as "acceptable", though I'd feel much better about it if there were sources to elevate the significance of the differences being mentioned and ideally explain why the changes were made, rather than just a list which other editors might in turn add to inappropriately. I won't oppose the addition, but I'm ambivalent about it. Doniago (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, ditto Doniago. The language is nice and neutral, the list is short and covers just some major points (in terms of being really noticeable changes). But I fear that the addition of any such list without sourcing to at last reference that such changes exist (and ideally to expand a little bit as Doniago said) will quickly become a cruft list as other editors try to add every little change. I seem to recall several reviews at the time of the film's release noting some of this stuff. I wonder if we could use that to at least source the validity of the the statements (that said items ARE different). Anyone up to some review mining? Millahnna (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change, but I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure the section doesn't explode. Thank you for your valuable input! SeanNovack (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Harry Potter analogy doesn't work. As the American Cinematographer article referenced pointed out, the movie was retrofitted to sorta-kinda pretend to be a film based on one of the most famous military SF novels in history by one of the field's Grand Old Men, yet completely failed in representing anything meaningful from the book (regardless of one's opinion of the ideology or ideologies which the book may or may not represent). An article about the movie which glossed over this fact ignores the most notable aspects of this widely-hated film. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that RT gives the movie a 61%, I'd be curious to hear some substantiation for the "widely-hated" assertion. In any case, if we are to discuss the specific departures from the book than they should be backed up by real-world context, with any available explanation as to why the changes are made. Otherwise we're applying undue weight to the differences that we do discuss. WP articles should not include random lists of in-universe differences with no context provided, and it would be perilously close to original research for us to claim that the changes we list are the "important" ones without third-party sourcing. Doniago (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: widely-hated by people who have actually read the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'd still be curious as to your source for that claim. I read the book, and I must admit I preferred the film, but that's not a comment on the quality of either. Anyway, I think we can both agree this isn't really pertinent to the topic? Doniago (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When a film that costs 105 million dollars in 1997 (a huge figure), loses money domestically, and only nets 16 million worldwide it isn't exactly a success. This information explains part of the reason why it was rejected by the fan community and lost out at the box office. A prime example of this kind of controversy can be read at [1], and dozens of other places if one searches. This isn't "cruft", it was a relevent issue with the film when it was released (much like the 1985 film adaptation of "Dune") and a direct influence on public reception. SeanNovack (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Without third-party sourcing, it would seem that the only arbiters of what specifically is or is not cruft when it comes to listing specific differences between the film and the novel are Wikipedia editors, and clearly there may be some disagreement there. I fully support a discussion of how the film's divergence from the novel may have contributed to its poor box office, but I don't think we should be citing differences without sourcing that establishes that the difference was considered significant. As far as I know this is the criterion used for every other film article with a "differences from the novel" section. Charlie St. Cloud, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. Even extending this beyond film articles, my understanding is that Wikipedia articles should not contain lists of allegedly-significant items unless there is sourcing to verify that significance....in other words, if nobody made note of it in a reliable source, how significant can it really be? Doniago (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, this film was released 14 years ago, so finding timely secondary sources on the 'Net can be seriously problematic. I did provide you with a source that is more recent in my last argument that shows many of the significant problems people had with the film and it's comparison with the novel, there are many more that can be found from people that prefer the film or the novel more, and that argument alone shows that it was and is "significant". It was established by consensus months ago that this paragraph was acceptable, and now you are attempting to remove that consensus without putting forth an argument that brings up a new policy argument. Simply stating that you feel it is "cruft" is not sufficient to overturn that conseneus. SeanNovack (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia's policies are all about verifiability, if we can't find secondary sources, that's our problem, and not an excuse to include unreferenced material in the article. I haven't reviewed your source, but if it lists specific examples of differences, then by all means put them in the article with a citation; I don't have an issue with that. A paragraph being considered "acceptable" is hardly a ringing endorsement, and reservations were expressed by other editors at the time. While I won't disagree that my removal of material in this case was contrary to my earlier statements, consensus can change...that editors weakly supported the inclusion of the material previously does not mean they would do so now. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any harm in reconsidering the topic several months later; I know my views on this type of issue have evolved and (obviously) I would no longer support its inclusion given the precedents I am aware of. FWIW, in any case I'd forgotten that we'd discussed this previously (and I'm not sure that the text removed was identical to what we agreed upon at the time), so my apologies for my lapse of memory. Doniago (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've requested additional opinions from the WP:FILM folks. Request is here. Also, FWIW I looked at your source and it appears to be a blog that would not meet the reliable source criteria, IMO. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, you're a solid editor, but your bias is showing. Why didn't you ask for comments from the people at the Novels Wikiproject or the Science Fiction Wikiproject? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I brought it up at WP:FILM because the article is about a film. If you'd like to solicit feedback at other projects you are quite welcome to do so. Doniago (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As per the RFC

I would say this is primarily a WP:SYNTHESIS issue, in that you are advancing observations based on two separate sources. Using the works as primary sources for plot summaries is one thing, but by using the two to present a combined basic analysis is OR because neither primary source provides a comparitive analysis. You definitely need a secondary source that documents the differences—at the very least—and to make it a good encylopedic inclusion preferably one that presents a rationale for the changes or some kind of analysis of them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm honestly not trying to be difficult here, but I want to be clear on what we are trying to source and what would be considered "Reliable". Are we sourcing the fact that there are differences between the novel and the film (as the original edit months ago called for)? Are we sourcing the fact that the differences were controversial? Are we sourcing the fact that the differences caused the film to fail at the box office? The goalposts keep moving here. Also, I'd like to see any Wikipedia POLICY that states that this content does not belong. This is a film that is directly taken from a novel using the same title, the setting, the names of the characters, and the primary struggle. The fact that the novel was extremely successful (required reading at all US Military Academies) and the film (which differed greatly from the novel because the director of the film found the book "boring and depressing") didn't even make it's production costs domestically is a notable fact that is readily apparent. You don't need to source the fact that the sky is blue, and it isn't original researsh to state that it is. This is the point that is trying to be made here. Please clarify the concerns so we are all working toward moving the issue forward rather than simply Wikilawyering.

What we are trying to source will dictate what kind of sources we require. Would we need to find a reliable secondary source to state the Superman is from Krypton? How about spelling out the differences between the Marvel and Mobius Silver Surfers? Think you can find a Washington Post article on that? Call me an inclusionist, but when primary sources are obviously different there is no "interpretation" involved. The differences are plain with primary sources, the response to these differences are plain, but by definition can only be found by going to places that state opinion. If opinions are found of people that make a living by reviewing novels and films then these become "review articles" and therefore are considered reliable secondary sources. If a wikipolicy can be quoted to state that these facts cannot stand on their own then we can go down that road then.

All that was originaly being stated is that there were differences. If this content is not allowed please point out that policy. If reasons must be given as to why this information should be in the article (other than the fact that it is fact) then we can go that route. If reliable sources are going to be asked for every word in every article in Wikipedia, then the Project is going to get a whole lot smaller. Let us know what you are looking for, and why you need it, and we'll work on that basis. SeanNovack (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Due weight states Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. If no-one has covered the differences between the works in published writing then it shouldn't be included, because there is nothing out there to give weight to. If you take a typical book and a typical film adaptation then the number of differences you could list could be almost as long as the book itself; anyone can make a list of differences, but deciding which are the key differences is a viewpoint. Look at it this way, you want to list a difference because you think it is important, and Donagio is asking you to validate its selection as a key difference: has anyone else deemed this particular difference you want to document to be important enough to cover in a published work? If not then its just your opinion that it's important. If it's just your opinion we don't cover it; if it's an opinion in published writing then Due weight compels us to give it proportional coverage i.e. the policy on article content states we represent published viewpoints, not viewpoints of editors. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I agree completely. Now we have clarified exactly what we are talking about, and we can move forward. SeanNovack (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Starship Troopers: Invasion

Well the official Sony Films site now has a page up for this film. I dont feel comfortable with adding this due to my still disbelief this is true.

http://www.starshiptroopersinvasion-movie.com/

If someone could make sure this is correct I would appreciate it.--75.111.134.10 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)RandomGuyWithNoAccount