Talk:An American Carol

Multilated

Someone needs to fix the subjectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbledygookie (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So...you want more subjectivity? Less? Given how short the article is and that it doesn't have any POV issues, not sure what you are asking for. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks perfectly neutral to me. If you're talking about the subjectivity of the movie, I suggest that you get over it. --Posie (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that its a parody of "Contemporary American culture" which is obviously to Zucker probably going to be a spoof of some Liberal things from a conservative standing, but granted, I don't think I've heard "Spoof of Liberalism from a conservative view" from anything official.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation for the first sentence did not match the sentence. Fixed.--Peterpressure (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... I agree that maybe something should be added about the politics of the film -- most films are politically neutral, whereas mostly everyone who worked on / acted in this one seems to lean to the far right. If something is said about Micheal Moore's movies leaning to the left, maybe there should be a short blurb to the same effect in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.47.155 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Most films of -this- type are politically left, though. I think that's the point of the bit in the first paragraph. That is to say, most films that are political at all are politically left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, note that everyone involved with the movie is affiliated Republican or unaffiliated. Given that that's true of a very small minority of Hollywood, I'd say that at least the mention of it is noteworthy. Voight, for one, was a major presence at the convention, and is not in a lot of stuff nowadays. 71.247.12.19 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reaction from Neoconservatives

Given that Zucker is a Neocon, and that film itself it aimed at Neocons, we should include reactions from Neocon thinktanks like the PNAC, the Heritage Foundation, NCPA, etc. Ericster08 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with "Religulous"

As this film's diametrically opposite competitor, the Bill Maher film "Religulous" was released on the same day as this film, it is proper to compare how the two films performed in the box office. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how a film attacking Michael Moore and a film attacking religion are diametrically opposed. Your argument fails on its face. W@ntonsoup (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's comparing a film by a liberal filmmaker (Larry Charles) vs. a film by a conservative filmmaker (David Zucker) which were released at around the same time. There are several articles already comparing the two films on line. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So the filmmakers are diametrically opposite. Not the films. Get that straight. The films can't even possibly be diametrically opposite because the subject matter is completely different. 98.168.194.130 (talk)

It might also be a good idea to find some materials comparing the two films' marketing campaigns as well, so people can consider how that affects the box office performance. 72.47.47.37 (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I found this obviously biased commentary comparing the two films at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/maher-mangles-zucker-at-t_b_132064.html with a liberal slant. The other stories I found so far compares other films besides the two films in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of NPOV, if you're going to condemn all the liberal-slanted commentaries, you should condemn all the conservative-slanted commentaries as well. Ericster08 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how exactly it's "diametrically opposite". I know Maher is a liberal, but Religulous is about religion and American Carol is about American politics. So I don't think it naturally belongs in this article. - 68.51.43.195 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Read NPOV link below as "An American Carol" director David Zucker calls his film the opposite of the Bill Maher movie. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the diametrically opposite, though. So just beacuse David Zucker says it is, it automatically is? that's ridiculous, a documentary on religion and a fictional political comedy can NOT even possibly be diametrically opposite, it just doesn't make any sense to put it there. 98.168.194.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

Its only proper to make the comparison if a notable source does the same, otherwise its WP:OR. CENSEI (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Found NPOV comparison at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-carol_1003gl.ART.State.Edition1.2699bd1.html Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are now synthesizing Zuckers comments and the revenue figures to make the horserace comparison. CENSEI (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Variety has an article directly comparing the two films at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993541.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comparison from a Catholic viewpoint: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16170/ Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Only one of those compares revenue figures and that's only as an aside. You really need a better source if you want to compare their revenue figures otherwise it's [{WP:OR]] Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The box office figures links are not sufficient??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read up on policy which has been linked to you multiple times? The box office figures only establish how each film did. If you want to cite the box office figures, you should be comparing An American Carol to every other film Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid to compare the two. One is an ideologically conservative comedy, while the other is a nonreligious documentary on religion. They're incomparable. 98.168.194.130 (talk)

It is NOT stupid. There are already several news stories online comparing the two films if you look at http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22american+carol%22+%2B+religulous&ie=UTF-8 Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's IRRELEVANT information. This is wikipedia, please only keep and put relevant information to the article on. 98.168.194.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

I respectfully disagree as the many news stories in the above URL link prove. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steelbeard1: since, as he documents, people outside of Wikipedia, coming from conservative, liberal, and neutral POVs are comparing the two movies, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to do so. Krakatoa (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. We (one?) source/s comparing the two films from a general standpoint, the Dallas News article. It's fine to mention this comparison has been made. It's quite another thing for us to use this comparison as an excuse to conduct OR in comparing the viewership figures. That would be little different from me trying to comparing the special effects in the two films because people have compared the two films. The Variety article does briefly compare the viewership figures but only as an aside and it also mentions other stuff like Growing Paint. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it still makes sense to mention it (besides maybe a mention that there have been comparisons, although there aren't many by critics or the media - sure there are probably some in the blogosphere, though.) Because they've been [barely] compared by people who've written articles, they're comparable? The fact of the matter is that one is a documentary on religion while the other is a fictional political comedy. They ARENT diametrical opposites, since they're have such different premises to begin with and it's ridiculous to claim they are just because the director said so. It should be removed. 98.168.194.130 (talk)

Nevermind I've found a ref ACTUALLY COMPARING THE VIEWERSHIP FIGURES. It's unfortunate that the Steelbeard kept reverting to keep UNSOURCED information in the article when a reference was so easy to find. Yes I probably should have searched before I remove the information but to be fair I did search last time and I WAITED OVER A WEEK for someone to add sources Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The weekly box office figures speak for themselves. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet that doesn't make them anymore relevant. Isn't that weird?

If you're going to mention box office figures (which obviously doesn't belong in the article in the first place,) and you mention how many theaters An American Carol was released on, why wouldn't you mention how many theaters Religulous was released on, for a better example, if we're comparing the two (which still should not be done in the first place?)

 98.168.194.130 (talk)

Number of Theaters

It would be nice to compare 1,639 theaters and 502 theaters to the everyday "in theater near you" release; because neither one is not showing in our area. -Hamster2.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

That would unnecessarily lengthen the article. The easy thing to do is go to this URL which is from the movie's web site: http://www.movietickets.com/movie_detail.asp?movie_id=66130 and punch in your zip code. You may need to extend the radius to find a town showing this film. The theater list would become obsolete in a few weeks when the film leaves the theaters and becomes available on DVD, most likely sooner rather than later because of the box office figures. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scoreboard

I'm concerned that the box office receipts seem to be being used as a referendum on the "conservative movement". It's probably a lost cause for the next week or two, but in the end what we need is a nice neutral "this film made $X at the box office without editorializing.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no editorializing, it's NPOV and backed by verifiable citations as well as several news articles which themselves compare the two films. I think with the dropoff in the second weekend, that may be the last box office report for this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right it's not bad now. I was following the whole Carrol vs. Religoulus saga and didn't check the current state.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)