User talk:TheOldJacobite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:RepublicanJacobite)
Jump to: navigation, search

If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, post here.

Apt Pupil genre

What distinction do you make between thriller and psychological thriller when it comes to Apt Pupil (film)? I reviewed the sources, and some say thriller, and some say psychological thriller. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To me, the important distinction between a thriller and a psychological thriller is that, with the latter, there is always a question of the degree to which the events are happening in reality or merely in the character's mind. That is why a film like Black Swan is, amongst other things, a psychological thriller. In this film, we are not primarily dealing with the inner workings of the Brad Renfro character's mind, but with actual, real-world events. A film like Fight Club is a tricky psychological thriller in that we do not realize 'til the end that a lot of what we saw took place in the unnamed narrator's mind. The tenuous line between the character's mind and reality is what, to me, defines the psychological thriller. What are your thoughts on this question? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll need to see what films are commonly cited as psychological thrillers and review the definition as well (in Google Books or something). "Psychological thriller" had made sense for Apt Pupil since it is two characters playing mind games with each other. The Picart & Frank book Frames of Evil had labeled this film as such. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You make a good point about the "mind games," I had not thought of that. I am now reconsidering my position. It just seems to me that I have seen too many films called "psychological thrillers" on WP, and I am generally skeptical of the definition. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I poked around, and it does not seem like Apt Pupil is often in the league of psychological thrillers. I'll leave it at "thriller film". I also saw it called a "horror film", but it just does not seem to fit. Gotta love the arbitrary nature of genre categorizing... Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In Bruges

I am concerned you reverted my entire edit to In Bruges, which included several important points which not only clarified the plot and corrected some errors, but importantly gave insight into the essential thought process of the key characters. Please review and come back to me with your comments/ideas on how to resolve this conflict.Sedimentary (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WP has guidelines regarding length of film plots, and they should be abided by. Further discussion should take place on the article talk page, not here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of actors from infoboxes (revisited)

I saw you already archived our discussion, so I'll reboot it here. I apologize for not abiding by the DBAD concept by getting annoyed at you not answering me. It was based on the fact that you'd reverted me again after I posted it and still hadn't replied at all, but even still, I should've just waited for your response. Now, I don't think I'm working against consensus in adding actors based on a guideline included in the template documentation, but that's going to be the extent of my defensiveness and it really isn't even relevant now. I've opened up the discussion I was talking about over at the documentation talk page and I welcome you to join it. I'm also going to post a link to it at WT:FILM. Maybe you can help me streamline some thoughts that I had trouble making cohesive. Thank you for working with me, and sorry for all the bickering in the past. Hopefully we can get something sorted out. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at your post and offer my thoughts. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an exception

I wasn't citing the IMdB top 250 directly. The cited source (which I thought another editor might have read before reverting; the rather swift span of time between my edit and your revert seems to suggest otherwise) is an article in The New York Times Magazine (which AFAIR is a reliable source; certainly I would agree with you that the Times Magazine's use of the IMdB top 250 as a source does not make it a reliable one for us). The point I was trying to make isn't so much that it's on the IMdB top 250 but that it's one of the only two post-1950 films to have been released during the winter dump months yet still be on that list (The point I'd really like to make', one that I wish Ty Burr had made when writing that article, was that it's the only such release to have won Best Picture)).

I think that this justifies a little leniency. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not an exception, because it is still about the IMDb Top 250, which is not a reliable barometer of a film's importance. Anyway, this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. Actually, I've found a better source for what I really wanted to say that I'll add at some point in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fight Club (novel) is at GAR

Fight Club (novel), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tezero (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Merry Merry

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)