Talk:The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Article Content

Please allow reasonable time to compile content for this article. I seem to be the only person working on it and I only have access to the internet for short periods of time. I invite others to share information, ideas and content to flesh out this subject. LEX LETHAL 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the article using available citations. Should be pretty up-to-date in the reliable sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

someone changed "heath ledger" to "zombie heath ledger" in the sidebar. it directs to the article on zombies, rather than the article on heath ledger. someone should prolly fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.98 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To anyone visiting the talk page, there is no information about how Ledger's death will affect production. There is no verifiable information about the size of his role and if he had already filmed his scenes or not. Please do not speculate in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, it is not known if he was in the "midst" of filming. The CBS 2 article only cites an anchor at WCBS who stated that based on the fact that the movie was currently in production. No statement has been made regarding whether he had begun filming his scenes, whether he had completed them, or if he was actually in the "midst" of filming. Given that production is in London, is moving to Canada, and he was found in Manhatten indicates that he probably was not involved in the current location shooting.--Ahecht (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? "He... was in the midst of filming The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus." It's speculative to say outside of the independent source how much he did, if at all. Traveling isn't difficult these days. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This shows he had been in London the weekend before. No indication of how far long his scenes were, as he was apparently not a primary character (at least in the premise). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are now sources which reckon he was filming in London at the time [1] [2] [3] Pretty Green (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger died during filming the movie and was found dead in his bed, someone should change some of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.38.24 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is mention of his death at the end. However the film could theoretically still star him, if he had shot lots of footage, and the producers decide to keep it. Terry Gilliam has rotten luck getting films finished. It's surprising that the IMDB doesn't list Ledger's character name or role. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Encouraging rumour. I hope it turns out to be true: http://www.bigpictureradio.com/2008/01/depp-to-fill-in-for-heath-ledger-in.html 71.205.136.119 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming

Saying that this film is "upcoming" implies and assumes far more than "unfinished" does. Is the film finished? No, it is not; that's a verifiable fact. Is it coming up? I don't know; my crystal ball isn't working. It's bad enough that WP puts predictions like this on films where the odds are in favor of them being true. I don't think we should put such a prediction on a film whose future is this cloudy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't know either way about how Ledger's death affects the film. I can't think of any in-between wording, since production has been disrupted, but we don't know if it's temporarily or permanently or some degree in between. You're right, "Upcoming" would not be quite accurate, but the problem is, we can't argue anything other than our opinions -- will it be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote or The Crow? Obviously, we should keep an eye out for reliable sources to see what kind of track this project is on. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"We don't know either way... " That's my point. The "in-between wording" you're looking for is... unfinished. It lies between one prediction (canceled) and the opposite prediction (upcoming). You seem to think I'm offering an opinion of what will happen, with that adjective, but I'm not. I'm just saying that the film is not finished... maybe it will be, maybe it won't be. Anything more hopeful and optimistic than that is NPOV, just anything that said it was probably canceled would be. And there's plenty of clarification in the article itself for those who are unclear about what unfinished means. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the word "unfinished" is that it's a permanent phrase. Look at The Man Who Killed Don Quixote -- it was never finished, and hence, it's called unfinished. Both of our preferences can be seen at opposite ends -- "will be coming out" and "won't be coming out". This is a really dynamic situation because we're caught in an activity that doesn't happen often, and there's no slap-on label for it. I'll stick with "unfinished" for now, and hopefully we can get word soon enough from filmmakers about how they'll proceed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Inserting one word and moving some others might do the trick. How about something along the lines of

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an American fantasy-adventure film production, directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam and screenwriter Charles McKeown. In January 2008, the death of Heath Ledger, whose presence had been vital to the film's financing, disrupted production of the film. The Imaginarium has been cast with [yada-yada]..."

It tells the truth, it's non-speculative and doesn't give any misleading impressions either way. It might be a tiny bit clumsy, but it's not as if it'll be there for long; word will surely come out soon as to whether production will restart. If production is halted permanently, the article content will likely end up at the Gilliam page anyway. Steve ^{T • C} 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfinished is no more permanent than undiscovered or unread is. Today's "unread book" could easily be tomorrow's "read book". Unfinished makes no predictions; it asserts no Point Of View. Likewise, I never said that this film "won't be coming out"; I only said that there's enough chance of that to make the prediction embodied by upcoming inappropriate. I want the article to be completely noncommittal. An "unfinished" work is a work that has not been finished. And this movie has not been finished. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the definitions available. In the context of films, an "unfinished film" falls in the category of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and other films in being that production did not go all the way through. That's why I have an issue with that word choice, but like I said, I'll wait for more information about how production will continue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After my previous comment, I checked again for headlines. Production has been indefinitely suspended, so I now agree that "unfinished" fits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

How about using this picture of Heath Ledger on the Parnassus set or this production drawing taken from Gilliam's fanzine?. I think they could both be fair use, thoughts?.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Depp

Yes, the source of all rumors is probably the Sun. But if all this reliable sources are also publishing it, why shouldn't we? The BBC is also acknowledging the existance of these "reports". So is thisisnothigham.co.uk, movies.com, cinematical.com, herladsun.com.au, sify.com (India News), etc. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for an encyclopedic article, though? The rumor seems too newsy at this point, due to headline grabs following Ledger's death. Sooner or later, there'll be a response regarding the rumor. If the rumor is false, then it's not substantial enough to mention. If the rumor is true, then we can cite the source that official confirms the recasting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is, because even if it ends up not being true, those sources mention it, and the sentence would evolve into Rumors about Depp replacing Ledger emerged shortly after his death,<REFS> but this rumors were later denied by blablablaa<REFS>.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But then it's a non-issue for this production if it's false. What does it matter in the encyclopedic scheme of this unfinished production, if there was no reality to the rumor after all? Just because it's verifiable does not automatically warrant it for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A) if the film is cancelled, then this article will become an article about what was going to be, what was, and what happened afterwards, so the Depp thing would be appropriate for a post-Ledger section, just like the economical consequences that will eventually leak, as will Gilliam's future plans. I'm talking about a section like the unreferenced one over at The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.

B) if the film is not cancelled, then the sentence would be "the Sun first published Depp's involvement...on January 24...blabla".--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider the numerous news reports that came out after Heath Ledger's death was announced. There were a lot of different details that were wrong and still got widely circulated. Since then, the details have been corrected, and we don't waste our time dwelling on what had been wrongly reported before. Here, we have a similar headline grabber -- from a tabloid -- about a possible role update after it came straight from the studio that production was suspended indefinitely. If there is any truth to this rumor, someone will say something, and we can report accordingly. We don't need to cover every bit of media frenzy that takes place with these unexpected circumstances. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we'll discuss this again tommorrow or the day after, when more sources emerge.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)