Talk:James Gunn

Removed section re:Slither plagerism

I have removed a section that didn't meet WP:BLP - Diffs - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gunn_%28film_maker%29&diff=69719178&oldid=69714214 - It's going to need sources cited before it can be acceptable re-inserted. Megapixie 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On Analysis of Slither

The term "box office bomb" is not appropriate for a film that made back more than 50% of its budget (the 29.5 budget number is incorrect - the 15 million is closer to the truth). Saying it was "critically acclaimed" and "most well-reviewed" are not POV: they are facts. The truth is the movie has by far the highest rating of any horror movie on Rotten Tomatoes since SCREAM. The movies are listed under genre and you can see them as such. If you want to reword a thing or two (I removed "extremely" at your suggestion), that's fine. But what you're currently doing is vandalism, and will not be tolerated by Wikipedia. Sensorium 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't say "general audience distaste" for this film, POV. 12 million on a 15 million dollar budget is DEFINITELY not a bomb (a much large percentage of its budget has been returned than has Superman Returs or Miami Vice, for instance, which are not in the box office bombs category). Also initial DVD sales are brisk and will probably cause the film to turn a profit, unlike those others mentioned. Just deleted silly unimportant info. 66.159.192.213 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You are also being disingenious. Plus since when does your speculation about possible DVD sales matter in wiki? Unless you have a crystal ball, there is no proof that Slither will recoup it's losses on DVD. And unless you can cite sources stating otherwise, then you are violating WK:OR and WK:nPOV. I suggest you refresh yourself with WK:CITATION policy. For starters, the sources and citations listed CLEARLY STATE that the film cost 29.5 million to make this film. The film cost around 15 to produce and an additional 15 to market. Plus, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the box office. That's why wikipedia has a strict policy AGAINST WK:OR and WK:nPOV. Multiple sources and citations from reputable sources have labeled this film a box office failiure including [1] and [2]. In other words, you are not allowed to edit/delete contributions when those contributions have been backed-up by multiple citations. Your paperthin attempt to spin the facts violates the purpose of wikipedia. This is not a james Gunn fan page or a Slither blog. Please limit your contributions to factual contributions.Tromaintern 09:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Costs generally refer to "production costs". End of story. Why am I being disingenious? And what did I ever say about DVD sales? 66.159.192.213 12:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And the winner for most badass name goes to....

JAMES GUNN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.249.202.99 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

This Page is Horribly Maintained

There's a LOT of POV stuff here.

In reading over, I returned the critical success paragraph that seems as valid as the box office bomb stuff created herein.

I removed the Tolkin/Frank stuff, as almost every single Hollywood film has rewriters who tune up a screenplay. Gunn was still awarded full screenplay credit by the WGA, which means he wrote 75% or more of the film. Those are the WGA's guidelines.

And being the first screenwriter to have back to back #1 hits is definitely notable.

I also deleted a silly paragraph about how the studios won't return his calls, etc, which referenced an artical which said nothing of the sort.

There's a lot more sloppy stuff here, but I don't have the time now to go through it.

I don't want to get involved in a thing here. But while I agree with some of your points, your other points are guided by POV concerns that are inappropriate here. You are spinning some facts. Just because many Hollywood screenplays have rewrites doesn't mean that truth, by itself, invalidates the need to provide the reader with all relevant info. This isn't a promotional website for James Gunn. Our job isn't to paint him in the best possible light. I urge you to read up on Wiki's policy on living biographies. The job is to provide "objective" information. And that WGA claim, true or not, is only valid here if and ONLY if you can provide sources to back up that claim. It doesn't dispute the fact that other writers were a necessary part of the history of that film, Dawn of the Dead. If you want to include the WGA claim IN ADDITION TO the fact that James Gunn was not the solo screenwriter, then please do so. Also, being back to back #1 hits is NOT notable. According to who? It's silly promotional POV crap that belongs on a fanpage, not here on Wiki.

However, I do agree that the unsourced paragraph about Hollywood not returning Gunn's calls should be removed.

BLP

This is a WP:BLP article, we need to keep out as much of the contentious material as possible. Quotes about a film he made and its box office performance are not particularly relevant, and keep being inserted by the same editor. That discussion belongs on the page for the film, definitely not for here. Additionally, continued and unsourced references to Gunn's "ex-wife" are incorrect, they are evidentally only separated. Thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tromaintern et al has not addressed my concerns with WP:BLP. The main problem here is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person; it also gives much undue weight to the box office performance of one film he did. If you don't stop re-inserting it, I see no choice but to protect the page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page after the WP:BLP violations were reinserted for the umpteenth time. Discussion can continue on the talk page, but even in the unlikely event that that progresses, the poorly sourced negative material must stay out of this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Okay, so the page has been unprotected for one day, and already there's an issue. Both the performance and the reception of Slither should be mentioned, briefly, on this page. But we don't need to call it a "box office bomb". Just the basics, the rest can be discussed at the film's page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you removed both the box office reception and the critical reception. That might not be a bad way to deal with it, but I think they can be mentioned briefly on here, it's relevant to Gunn's professional biography. Anyone else have an opinion?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is to mentioned briefly, then it is only fair to say the movie was a box office disappointment FACT and the movie was well-received by the critics FACT. Otherwise, both should not be mentioned at all. And until this can be resolved fairly, then I'm removing both from the page. Your POV should not be present on this article if mine cannot.