User talk:Erik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ethnicity[edit]

Is not a social construct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.45.93 (talkcontribs) 01:59, November 15, 2014‎

Long time no speak, sir[edit]

Hey man! I haven't talked to you in awhile. How've you been? See anything good lately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sock (talkcontribs) 12:03, November 19, 2014‎

Hello, it is good to hear from you! :) I've been pretty busy IRL the past few weeks. I have not had the chance to edit too much. I saw Chef for the second time last night (after seeing it the previous Sunday). It's a great indie comedy; I recommend it if you haven't seen it yet. Other movies I've seen this month: Hercules (different take on the legend but still rather cookie-cutter), Falling Down (which struck me as pretty dated), A Field in England (well-shot and well-written but pretty freaking bizarre), and Belle (really liked, especially in the light of ongoing discussions about race). Oh, and I saw Interstellar in 70mm IMAX. :) The sci-fi nerd in me loved it, though I can understand others finding the story weak. How about you? Find time away from school to watch any movies? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I know the feeling, classes have been kicking my ass lately. Coming up on finals is always "oh shit I should've worked ahead" time. I have Chef on hold at the library, so I'll be picking that up soon. Hercules didn't especially interest me, but I'm sure I'll watch it when it comes out on Blu-ray. Hard not to love The Rock. I can see how Falling Down would seem dated: it certainly feels like it's 20 years old. I still can't help but enjoy it though. I'll check out A Field in England, Ben Wheatley's segment in The ABCs of Death was pretty enjoyable, so why not? I also really enjoyed Belle. Tom Wilkinson got me to watch that one, and I'm glad I did.
Interstellar is on my slate for this weekend. I put it and Big Hero 6 off in favour of Birdman, which opened kinda near me (30 miles, but whatever). It was phenomenal, definitely check it out if it opens close to you. Also saw Nightcrawler, which surprised me with how fantastic it was (Jake Gyllenhaal being a massive part of that). I'll have to watch it again, but it's a definitely strong contender for my favourite film this year. John Wick was also really enjoyable. It was fantastic to see Keanu back in a role that suits him, and he has not forgotten how to kick ass. The fight choreography in that movie was bonkers. Also saw Fury a few weeks back. Thought it was pretty damn good, had some excellent performances (Shia LaBeouf and Logan Lerman leading the pack there, oddly) and great direction. Definitely better than Sabotage, as Ayer's excessive violence served a purpose. I'm 100% sure that there's a few I'm forgetting but I can't think of them. I'm really anticipating when Foxcatcher and Whiplash come around, which is odd since both of those feature middle-aged teachers who are verbally and physically abusive. Huh.
Anything you're looking forward to? Feel free to ignore that wall of text. Sock (tock talk) 17:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You have excellent taste! :) Aside from Sabotage, I'm interested in all the movies you named. Unfortunately, I don't go to the theater very much for non-blockbuster films; I tend to watch them on Netflix or Redbox. I'm interested in Nightcrawler because Gyllenhaal has been fantastic on the indie scene recently with movies like Prisoners and Enemy. I'll be watching 22 Jump Street with a few friends tonight. When I'm at my parents' place next week, I'll probably try to catch one of these independent movies as part of a family outing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I do my best, haha. Thanks man. Sabotage was decent, I would say watch it if there's literally nothing else on and you're just looking for a violent action movie. If that situation arises, don't sweat it. It will not make a very big difference. I can understand why you don't go to the theatre for non-blockbusters, my parents and sister are the same way. I just love to support any film I can, and I have a well-enough paying job that I can afford to go to the theatre every weekend. I also have few expenses since I live at home, so that's an added bonus.
I very very highly recommend Nightcrawler be the first of the films you see, followed very closely by Birdman. Prisoners was truthfully my favourite film from last year (not including Her or Inside Llewyn Davis because those didn't come to my theatres until 2014), and Enemy is a film that will stick with me for an extremely long time. I've watched it four times now, I think I've got a pretty solid theory on what it all means.
Did you like 22 Jump Street? I don't know if you liked the first one, but if you did, I'd be astounded if you didn't like the second. Sock (tock talk) 03:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sock, I'm impressed that you saw both Prisoners and Enemy too! :) Did you see this about the cinematography in Prisoners? I found Her masterful and a bit chilling at the same time, the idea of humanity being leapfrogged by AI. I really enjoyed 22 Jump Street; I felt like the theme of brotherly love was hammered excessively, but there were so many golden moments ("Something cool!") that made it worth the watch. :) I'll keep Nightcrawler and Birdman in mind, for sure! I think I don't make it to theaters because I don't have that much free time outside work; it is tough to carve out a night to go to the theaters. It is easy to rent a movie and start it at my own discretion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I get out to the theatre a lot, and when I don't, I watch whatever I can right as it comes out on home media. I've probably seen Prisoners three times and Enemy a solid five or six just to get a good comprehension of it. And I had not watched that cinematography video, thank you for that! I absolutely adored Her, Spike Jonze has done no wrong as far as I'm concerned. That was probably my second favourite movie of 2013 after Prisoners. I'm glad you enjoyed 22 Jump Street! I can totally see where you're coming from on the brotherly love thing, but I'm glad the great comedy managed to overcome it a bit. And that all makes sense, I'm sure Nightcrawler and Birdman will be on Blu-ray sooner rather than later. Sock (tock talk) 12:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you remember?[edit]

Hello Erik. I hope that you are well. I can't remember which MOS has the instruction about using "is" in the lede section for films, TV shows etc. I want to copy it into my list of useful links and templates. I am hoping that you know where it is but if you no worries. Enjoy your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I cannot think of a specific place, but WP:LEAD#Proper names and titles makes it clear that "is" is proper to use across works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I stumbled on this WP:TVLEAD last night. I am wondering if we should add a variation on the last paragraph to WP:MOSFILM. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
MarnetteD, what about the last sentence at MOS:FILM#Lead section? I think that was the one intended to make sure we use "is" rather than "was". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I missed that. It looks good although IMO the word "presumably" could be problematic considering that we have 100s of articles about lost films. I think that situation has been discussed before though I can't remember the outcome. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ext. links in MOS:FILMS[edit]

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#External_links, I'm a bit confused about the wording. I'm trying to apply it to a GA review of Edge of Tomorrow. In that article, the external links section includes links to Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic. However, these same links already appear in the references. Should the ext. links section duplicate them as well? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Viriditas. I think that this WP:ELRC might be of help. I know that I usually remove them from an EL section if they have been used as a ref but, I mostly deal with article that are much smaller (by that I mean that the refs and ELs can be read without scrolling up and down) then the the one you are reviewing. There could be an argument made that - with such a large reference section - it is not helpful to the reader to make then hunt through it to find the links to those external sites. Just my opinion and Erik will probably know of policy pages that address this that I am unaware of. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, there are different opinions about whether or not to include these as external links. I understand that it seems to be redundant, but external links are meant to provide access to content that would not be available in an ideal (Featured) article. So for reviews, obviously we are not going to put in every review available in the article body. The external links provide that access. It is just happenstance that these links are both being used as references for the aggregate scores as well as external links to access additional content. The same can be said for Box Office Mojo since it provides much more box office detail than an ideal article would provide, although I do think Edge of Tomorrow provides plenty of box office detail. So like MarnetteD said, without highlighting them as external links, they'd be difficult to reach. Maybe these links' inclusion could be more explicitly justified with text saying what the links are for? E.g., "a collection of hundreds of film reviews"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for the clarification. I will mark it resolved for now. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead
  • In the lead for Edge of Tomorrow, it says "Edge of Tomorrow (also marketed with the tagline Live Die Repeat [nb 1])". That's pretty annoying and distracting. Does this alternate tagline/title need to be in the first sentence? Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Viriditas, we discussed this extensively on the talk page: Talk:Edge of Tomorrow (film)/Archive 1#Blu-Ray Retitle. I find it validated because I had a friend who saw it via Redbox recently and called the movie Live Die Repeat. So it is perceived as an alternative title. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Release dates of films[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. I was wondering when films are released in film festivals such as in Venice. Would that count as its release date or would the date it was first seen by the public count? The one I was querying was Killer Joe. Its premiere in Venice was Sep 2011 but its North American release was July 2012. So does it count as 2011 release or a 2012 release? Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Cowlibob, the consensus I've seen is to use the festival date. It's because it has been screened for independent consumption (the critics and audiences who attend the festival). When the year is different, though, it can help to be clear-cut in the lead section about the film being at a festival in one year and in commercial theaters the next. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Cowlibob (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for helping assess Edge of Tomorrow for the GA review and taking a lead role in editing and offering tips for improvement. Your opinion was valuable and insightful. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, appreciate it! Thank you for being very diligent in the process. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)