Talk:Changeling (film)

Great work

I just got done watching this film, and it was astounding. I was left in tears and when I thought I knew what was about to happen next, I was dead wrong. It was a never-ending thrill and suspense. I forgot that it was Jolie playing a part and that it was 2 and half hours. I really wanted to give a thank you to everyone that has worked on this article to make it achieve FA status. It is very informative, and at one moment I turned here hoping to know how they succeeded in getting all the cars and L.A to look like 1928–1935. I found information easily, written very thoroughly and comprehensible. I know this isn't a forum about the film, but I wanted to know something: When Christine first went to the court, and a man told her lawyer to go in the next room with the other trail going on—why were the officers being tried in that room and not the one she originally went in, and why didn't the committee/judge not know they were in the other room? The plot section didn't clarify this. I've already watched it two times and still don't get that. —Mike Allen 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, Steve along with his other collaborators have done a remarkable job with this article. It was fun and instructive to help with this article. I learned a lot. In real life, Christine Collins' court case against J. J. Jones and the Los Angeles Police, and Gordon Stewart Northcott’s trial were held at different times and different locations (Los Angeles and Riverside County). J. Michael Straczynski, the screenwriter, placed the two trials at the same time and location to simplify the screenplay. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, I've read quite few things were changed for the film. One main thing, is the mother being absent from the film. —Mike Allen 05:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article so profoundly well-written? Is it because the involvement of both Jolie and Eastwood made the information easier to find and source?

I ask because I want to have everything I've seen done with this article done for other films. Who were the chief contributors? .Absolution. (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who collaborated on this article, the primary reason this article is well written is because Steve is an excellent writer and editor. Steve probably spent well over 100 hours editing this article. However, it also helped that a lot of information was made available about the film and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The screenwriter, J. Michael Straczynski, has actively interacted with fans online since the early 1990s. Through the years, Mr. Straczynski has done much to provide a behind the scenes glimpse of television and film production. Clint Eastwood and Angelina Jolie have been articulate and thoughtful in their interviews. Their fame provided incentive for the press to write about the film. Since Clint Eastwood has worked with the same team of film crew for the majority of his films, this crew is a know quantity to the press which made it easier to for them to cover the film.

You can see who contributed to any film by looking at Revision history statistics.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Necessary?

• "...In post-production, scenes were supplemented with computer-generated skylines, backgrounds, vehicles and people."

Is this really necessary in the main section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubdubdub (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The detail seems relevant to help understand how thoroughly they illustrated the era. It's not always a given; eras may just be defined by set pieces and costumes. Erik (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New Yorker

New Yorker recently had an article about Clint Eastwood. There is a passage that pertains to Changeling: "[Million Dollar Baby] was less an expression of feminist awareness than a case of awed respect for a woman who was strong and enduring. (The theme was woodenly repeated in “Changeling,” from 2008, in which Angelina Jolie’s betrayed mother takes on the L.A.P.D.)" Just wanted to provide this. Erik (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Added this; cheers! Steve ^T • C 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but I think it would be relevant to note that Changeling did not do the theme as well as Million Dollar Baby. The way it reads, it seems like the films are on equal ground. Erik (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did consider that, but was unsure. Currently, the section outlines the themes but deliberately makes little explicit comment on how well the film tackled them. Would that be within the scope of the section, or more appropriate for reception, where it can sit alongside Denby's other comments? I took a similar view with American Beauty; all criticism of the themes, or the way the film tackles them, is covered among the reviewers' comments. Steve ^T • C 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

French Wikipedia's version

Worth highlighting (here), as it's just become an article de qualité (discussion). Nice work, and some interesting image choices, some of which I think could be of use here. Steve ^T • C 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see! What are the differences between this article and that one? Is there an "Errors" section at the end? I looked at the discussion page, but even with Google Translate could not understand it. Was the whole discussion Featured Article oriented? The green plus makes me think of Good Article status... Erik (talk | contribs) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, it was all towards the AdQ. The difference seems to be that they place all review processes on the same page. It skipped GA, but had it gone through the process, you'd have seen the discussion under the Bon article section. The Erreurs section is exactly what it appears to be. I wouldn't suggest we replicate it here with the same sources, however (even though some are English-language); it's almost entirely synthesis. :-) Apart from the addition of a couple of other sections, such as the list of release dates and cast members (and a spoiler warning!), the rest of the article is almost word for word. Still, the translation alone must have taken a hell of a lot of time. One thing that did come up in the AdQ was the film's strong reflection of Eastwood's libertarian bent; when more academic sources eventually emerge, I need to remember to add something about that here. Steve ^T • C 23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a very nice translation. I noticed that it includes some elements from the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article including the bibliography and a picture of Gordon Stewart Northcott. The French article on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is relatively recent. It was created on March 3, 2010. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

American Rebel

• Eliot, Marc (2009). American Rebel: The Life of Clint Eastwood. Harmony. pp. 325–327. ISBN 0307336883.

This book mentions Changeling across a few pages. Google shows some here, but not all. I can find the book at the store and get snapshots of the pages if desired. Let me know. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No preview for me, unfortunately, but it sounds very useful. It might be something I can get from my library. I'll check this weekend; if not, I'll come knocking. Cheers, Steve ^T • C 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Based upon the Google books preview Marc Eliot's does not appear to have any information not already in the Wikipedia article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you see page 327? It was the only one I could not see. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see parts of all of the pages with Changeling on them except pages 327 and 328. On those pages there is one sentence from the page and indicates that there is no preview for those pages. It may be worth checking out the book from the library, but I doubt that has any information Steve and I have not already seen on Changeling (film). This book was discussed in the Clint Eastwood forum here. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added an additional citation to the article from the book before stumbling on this discussion. The page in question covers the process of how the film originated by Straczynski, lists the date when filming began, and there is a quote by Jolie stating what it was like to work with Eastwood. I currently have the book until 5/11, so please let me know if you want me to look up anything specific. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Costumes

Laverty, Chris (May 5, 2010). "Changeling: Angelina Jolie's Fur Trimmed Coat". Clothes on Film. Retrieved May 5, 2010. is the most thorough analysis of the costumes in Changeling that I have seen. There is a lot of interesting information in the article. Unfortunately, this source looks like it is a blog, but one that has an editor. According to the website

The aim of Clothes on Film is to examine fashion and identity in the movies. With articles on specific outfits, reviews, news and whatever else seems to fit ...

--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Set burns

I'm puzzled by this comment in CNN "The set of "The Changeling," a film recently directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie, was "completely destroyed," Meyer said." [1] The Wiki article as it stands goes into great detail about the many locations that were used, rotoscoping, motion capture. So ... what burned? 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Street on the Universal Studios backlot is featured in the film. New York Street was mostly destroyed by the backlot fire in 2008. The street featured in hundreds of productions; the only reason Changeling is mentioned in that report is because it's one of the more recent. At the time, it seemed a little trivial to include, IIRC, otherwise we'd have a sentence saying "the set later burned down" in every article on every film that shot something there. However, looking at the report more closely, it seems to single out Changeling more prominently than other articles from the time. Perhaps something could be added. Steve ^T • C 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

History

Okay, can we please have a better hostorical section on this. I have no idea what happened to the mother based on this text. It saus she was released from a hospital out of nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.24.49 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if the character of Chairman Thorpe is a reference to an historical person? If so, what was his full name? 74.196.127.243 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

N American vs Worldwide takings

Given that the N American population is c 5% of the world pop, the claim "It performed better at the international box office than in North America, earning $113 million worldwide" seems unremarkable. What percentage of a US film's takings are usually earned in the US? Is there anything unusual or surprising in the distribution of revenue of this film, or is it a statement that could equally be made of most major Hollywood films? Does the "world", across the width of which $113 M include N America? Is N America, consisting of at least three countries, not already an international market?

These claims seem rather woolly: it would be good to clarify them before they appear on the Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the related references, Variety, says the following: "Eastwood is sometimes even more popular overseas than in the U.S. -- 'Changeling' and 'Letters From Iwo Jima' grossed more abroad than at home." Apparently Million Dollar Baby was just a little bit more in the box office outside the United States and Canada, while Mystic River grossed more in the United States and Canada. Technically, it should not be "North America" but "the United States and Canada" because Mexico is not often counted in the so-called "domestic" grouping. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But is this really unusual? Would most popular films not garner more money from the other 95% of the world than they do in the US? I suspect that Canadians would object to the proposition that their market is "domestic" to the US, rather than international. Although I was originally discouraged by the visual assault of numbers that is the Box Office section, I now see that the US and Canada actually generated less than a third of the total revenue. If it is unusual for non-US takings to exceed the domestic revenue, then the phrase "It performed better at the international box office than in North America" rather understates the facts, and the total being in the same sentence does nothing to demonstrate that claim. Can I suggest replacing that entire sentence with "It earned $113 million in box office revenue worldwide, of which nearly a third was gained in the U.S. and Canada." Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I put it in. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: any admin able to change that on the TFA extract? Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone's already taken care of that, but I'm planning to give the blurb a minor rewrite this evening in any event. As for this change, I'll comment later this evening when I have a little more time. All the best, Steve ^T • C 18:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so my concern is that neither version quite works. For a start, there's no context. What does either statement tell the reader? These hauls, inside and outside North America, mean different things for different films. For Paranormal Activity, these would be (and indeed, were) incredible figures; for Avatar, they'd be a disaster. Despite that, there was at least an element of nuance in the old wording; it didn't just tell the reader bare numbers, it planted the barest sliver of an idea that the film was not considered a hit at the North American box office, but was, to a certain extent, considered successful outside that territory. The new version loses that altogether. My initial reaction was to suggest reverting to the old wording; however, I now think we're all coming at it from the wrong direction. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but for the longest time it's danced around the issue of the box office haul, going out of its way to not state anything positive or negative. But this commentary is an important element of how a film is described and remembered, and we have the content in the article, and the cites, to not have to do that. So let's not. I suggest something simply to the effect of: "The film performed modestly at the North American box office, but better internationally, earning $113 million worldwide." On the face of it, it states the bare facts, but also does a good job of carrying over the ideas outlined above. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Edited 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So we now have a blurb due to go onto the front page in less than 20 minutes that bears little resemblance to the lead of the article, and which bears little resemblance to the proposal for the Main Page that was passed. This is not a minor re-write as mentioned at 6:19, it is large scale substitution.

As to the box office data, presenting clear facts is surely more encyclopaedic than opinions as to whether this represents a modest return. Using "internationally" as the opposite of "North American" is to claim that N America is one country. This new version is making judgement statements compared to an unstated (unverifiable?) expectation. A backward step in encyclopaedic standards. Kevin McE (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We use commentary from secondary sources to interpret facts all the time; otherwise, it lacks any context to help the reader understand what is, as I say, an important element of how a film is described and remembered, just as much as the critical reception (which is pretty much all opinion) is. Also, in the context of film and film articles, "internationally" is the more idiomatic term here, as is "North American" box office to describe that of the US and Canada. Steve ^T • C 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Changeling (film) → Changeling (2008 film) – The parenthetical disambiguator for this article does not currently disambiguate the article's title sufficiently. The 1980 film The Changeling was released as Changeling in Italy and, even if it wasn't, the inclusion of a definite article does not change the title so much that disambiguation is not necessary. For greater clarity, the year should be included in the article's title. Neelix (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are there any guidelines that cover the use of "The" in article titling? My impression is that "The" is a sufficient way to differentiate two topics, and we're supposed to be as precise as necessary in our titling. The 1980 film being titled Changeling in Italy is a valid point, but it strikes me as a rather minor one that we clarify with a simple hatnote. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  The reason that "The" is insufficient for disambiguation is that it is often dropped when the title becomes an adjective. For example, "Changeling characters" could be characters in either film. In any case, the real issue is that the 1980 film is also simply called "Changeling" in Italy. Neelix (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Even if "The" is dropped, it is going to be done after the full title is written out. This happens not just with "The", either; sources will sometimes use a shorthand for the full title. I understand where you are coming from, but I think that we are better off treating topics titled "Changeling" and "The Changeling" as distinct sets. The existing disambiguation page overlaps these sets for convenience, and I think that that and the existing hatnotes are sufficient. And like I mentioned, I think that the Italian title is minor. It's not worth the trade-off to make the move, in my opinion. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  What is the trade-off to make the move? I would be more than willing to take the time to fix the links. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The use of "The" already disambiguates, and its Italian title is not relevant on the English Wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although, contrary to the above remark, its title in Italy is relevant to English Wikipedia, as "Changeling" remains an English, not an Italian, word (and this is English-language Wikipedia), I agree with Erik that a simple hatnote will suffice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as nominator - One of the primary purposes of parenthetical disambiguators is to do away with the need for extraneous hatnotes; current practices affirm the preference of disambiguation via article title as opposed to disambiguation via hatnote. If the article title is not ambiguous, then the hatnote should be removed according to the guidelines about not disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. If the article title is ambiguous even though it employs a parenthetical disambiguator, then the parenthetical disambiguator should be altered so that it is no longer ambiguous. Neelix (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A simple hat note will suffice to distinguish this film from other films, television programs, plays and books with similar titles. Due to Clint Eastwood, Angelina Jolie and J. Michael Straczynski's involvement with the film, it is likely to be the best known with that title. Keeping the Wikipedia title as simple as possible makes the most sense. Quoting from the IMDb FAQ that I helped write for the film:

Press reports initially reported the title as "The Changeling", but there is no connection between this movie and other works known as "Changeling" or "The Changeling". For example:

The Changeling (2006) is based on the Jacobean tragedy written by Thomas Middleton and William Rowley that was first performed in 1622. The plot outline for this film is "Desperate to break her engagement to a man she does not love Beatrice enlists the help of the servant De Flores." The plot outline for Middleton's Changeling (1998) (also known as "The Changeling") is "Based on the 17th Century play, this modernization finds a young man (Colm O'Maonial) in love with a woman (Amanda Ray-King) who is promised to another (Guy Williams). Pleading with her man-servant (Ian Dury) to murder her pledged, he in turn blackmails her into a night with her. But she switches her maid (Julia Tarnoky) in her bed, which sets off a bloodbath." Although The Changeling (1911), The Changeling (1913), The Changeling (1914) and The Changeling (2002) have no plot outlines in the IMDb, they also appear to be based on the Thomas Middleton and William Rowley play.

The Changeling (1980) is a horror film starring George C. Scott. The plot outline for this film is "A man staying at a secluded historical mansion finds his life being haunted by the presence of a specter."

Changeling (2008/II) is an independent movie inspired by ye olde English folklore. Back in the day, villagers believed that goblins would steal human babies and leave one of their own goblins behind in its place (which the villagers called "changelings"). Now in the present day, the goblins are still up to their old tricks, and our hero's life starts to make a lot more sense when he discovers he's never been human at all.

Changeling (2009) is another independent film. A young Abenaki chief in 1774 loses his family in an attack and attempts to redress his loss by taking a young white girl prisoner.

There are at least two television episodes with the title "The Changeling". In Star Trek: The Changeling (#2.3), "A powerful reconstructed artificially intelligent Earth probe with a murderously twisted imperative comes on to the Enterprise and confuses Capt. Kirk as his creator." In Stargate SG-1: The Changeling (#6.19), "Teal'c is having strange nightmares featuring Apophis in which he is human and a firefighter with the rest of his team alongside him."

In print, there is the 1980 fantasy novel Changeling by Roger Zelazny, The Stolen Child, by Keith Donohue, which was inspired by the William Butler Yeats poem "The Stolen Child", and The Changeling (The Wormling) by Jerry B Jenkins and Chris Fabry. None of these novels are connected with this movie.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is correct and clear and clearly does not conflict with any other article on any other film on Wikipedia. No need to move or change either title. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New paragraph about Collins in historical section

Someone has been copied by some other source. It's better to cancel it directly or to wikify it?--Olbia merda (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the section copied directly from the article Wineville Chicken Coop Murder. This was a mindless copy and paste of text from that article which added no value. --Dan Dassow (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

College Essay

Jesus Christ, cut this down to a readable length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.86.13 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has passed through the featured article review process and consensus at the time, either through direct comment or passivity, determined that the article is of an adequate length. It is fairly long, but why is that a problem? It is to my mind the single most comprehensive article to be found on this subject anywhere, something to which all our articles should aspire. Per Wikipedia:Article size, the recommended top level of readable prose is around 50kB and while this article is 59kB, that's barely a paragraph or so above that recommendation, which many of us deem perfectly acceptable. And yet that still makes this only the 120th longest featured article in our arsenal. Consensus can of course change, and we're always happy to re-evaluate an article if someone has objections, so if you can identify specific sections of prose that the article would be better without, please feel free to point them out and we can discuss their utility. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Inviting Steve who edited away my comments to further discuss on talk page

Steve I would like to have a discussion with you regarding your comments that my inserted text has already been covered by the article. It has most certainly not been covered, otherwise, I would not have inserted it. Is your main concern that I did not cite references? IF that is your concern, I will be happy to do so, or is it that you do not believe what I wrote to be true??

Beaconmike (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

References do need to be cited for whatever content you add to the article, per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. In addition, when we add content, we report it in a disinterested tone. The latter part of what you added does not seem to be in that tone. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So that is your only concern, that there is no verifiability? I have no issue there. I will provide verification for all of my inserted information and then you can defend my additons from Steve and others who choose to remove them for other reasons than the truth. It will take me some time, but it will get done and then you can stand by me in what I said. By the way, your comments regarding my 'disinterested tone' are ridiculous and very subjective to your own point of view. I don't write to please you. If I was disinterested, I would not even be reading this article in the first place. By definition, anyone who reads this article is not 'disinterested'. Beaconmike (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You said in your edit, "However, the MPAA has no such standards or legal definition that must be met regarding the words 'A True Story'. Generally, the words 'A True Story' are determined by film companies, and as such could vary from film company to film company. The film Changeling should not be considered a documentary, nor is it 'A True Story' regarding the complete Historical record in the matter of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders." Did this come from a reliable source? Erik (talk | contribs) 04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(Not sure how to properly insert my comments to Eric, but let me try to do it this way, and if it is incorrect, my apologies in advance. Eric: I get most of my information regarding this from the Wiki pages. In addition, all one has to do is to contact the governing board that certifies films submitted for PG, PG-13 etc. and they will tell you that there are no standards for the words True Story. In addition Universal in this very Wiki article points out that it was their legal counsel who authorized the words "True Story" and that it was changed after Cannes, from "Based on a True Story". That is in this Wiki article itself. That is my source. Not sure if that meets Wiki standards or not, but it is still the truth.

Beaconmike (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Beaconmike, Erik has raised two concerns, so your comment above "is that your only concern", seems unhelpful to say the least. I suggest you address both of Erik's concerns before you edit the article again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, he does not have 2 concerns; he has one concern and one subjective personal opinion regarding my sentence structure. If Eric wants to point out to me the specific sentences where he thinks that I have a less than dis-interested tone, he is free to do so, but until the it is just his opinion and I am entitled to my opinion as well. Maybe I should submit my future edits to Eric and then he can post them in a 'dis-interested' tone. The fact of the matter is that I wrote the truth. It is verifiable and while Eric may disagree with my tone, it is still the truth. I don't exactly know how to write a dis-interested point of view, but I am happy to submit my paragraph to you as well for your edification, as long as you keep my main points of truth in the edit.

Beaconmike (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)