Jump to content

Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by TNstingray (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 26 May 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2

Melissa Morgan

Hey, folks, the Melissa Morgan story was fun, but it would be nice for this article to contain factual information instead of half-baked theories. I was the author of the April Fools Day prank in question, and I think the joke has had its day. Melissa (who has chosen to withhold her true identity) has very much enjoyed the fun, but let's move on now.

Kaleb70 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


But really, with the lack of real news at this point, can it hurt to keep this (partially) alive for a bit longer?

Film Box

Let's add a Info_Film Box for this Article. I tryed doing it and It Wouldn't create it.

If you mean the Template:Infobox Film, it's already on the page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there seriously no info on who's playing the new chars yet?

There is "seriously" no info besides the return of the Pevensies and Liam Neeson in the voice of Aslan. Filming is either starting now or will be starting within a few weeks so hopefully in that time we'll get at least a new actor or two. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Publishing order

The first sentance claimed PC was the 'fourth published novel'. Whatever your views on the reading order, PC was published second. changed 26 March 2008 1330 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.168.207 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinewood studios

May I advise editors to not write anything that says NZ will not be used in the shoot, most of it is speculation. There will be some shooting there, but we officially do not know the full extent of it. Wiki-newbie 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing back and forth

There seems to be a lot of rapid fire quick edits by Wiki-newbie and Textbook on this articles history. Having seen both users talk pages, I've seen that this is causing some friction and hostility. Might I politly suggest that those two users disengage for a time to allow things to die down? As the wikiquette policy states:

Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.

Please keep this in mind, so as to avoid anything escalating into an edit war.

Kind regards SGGH 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I went overboard. I feel that I have a right to prevent loss of citations and the article becoming a wikitable though. Wiki-newbie 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying any fault on either users part, its just a way of preventing things from escalating. :) SGGH 12:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image problem

Can anyone see the Concept Poster I added to the infobox? Wiki-newbie 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed this for you. The parameter was "image," not "poster." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

  • Walt Disney Pictures (2007-02-16). "Narnia Sequel Starts Principal Photography". ComingSoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't they announce this on Monday then? Funny ol' Hollywood. Wiki-newbie 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Warwick Davis talks about his role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncast roles

There used to be a note above the list of uncast roles saying that it was based on those characters who had large roles in the book but it disappeared as more roles were confirmed. I think that some version of it should be put back unless a cast list has been leaked somewhere. Unless there is a source for them existing in the script some of the roles might have been cut from the film. Eluchil404 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep it for now. Wiki-newbie 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Budget

There's mention of a £50 million budget in this article, though I'm not sure if it's just an estimate on the part of the reporter. Any thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldnt it be mentioned somewhere in the article that it is the most expensive motion picture of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.221.180 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no substantial evidence that this is the most expensive movie ever made - there is only one source to that claim: a tiny local newpaper's online edition claims the budget is $280 million when that cannot be verified by any other source whereas the more lower figure of $100 million can be found at 3 different sources: [1], [2], [3], and the moderate figure of $200 million is supported by more well-known sources such as the Boston Herald [4] and ABC news [5] it seems fair to go with the middle ground on this one and I'll post the budget as $200 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellojoe3 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting reasons for release date pushback

Near the top of the page there is a reason of pushing the release date back so as not to compete with the water boy. Whilst lower down there is a reason being the more complex special effects causing the release date to be pushed back. So which is it, does anyone know?

Hmmm... I'll edit it: I think it was a piece of IGN speculation. Alientraveller 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Official plot synopsis

Please do not re-add the official plot synopsis taken from narniaweb.com. It is copyrighted material and we cannot use it! Furthermore, we are not allowed to copy material from other websites, period, as it says directly below the edit box: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." It is up to us, the wikipedia community, to come up with an adequate plot synopsis of our own, which I think we have already done.

--NetherlandishYankee 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Free use image

Found this image of the crew showing off an animatronic from the film at Comic Con, I presume it Asterius, because it doesn't say. Anyway, its free use. Gran2 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe his name is Tyrus as per this report from ComingSoon. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the image could be cropped for Mark Johnson and Howard Berger's articles. Alientraveller 08:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning in production

First off, the article isn't that big, and doesn't require sectioning. Secondly, a release date isn't the same as production, nor is the previous film's article exactly the best comparison for structure: its production section is quite short as well. Alientraveller 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case it should be changed in the first movie's article. It would just look better and be easier to look at if all the Narnia movie articles followed suit. But the video game needs to be in a In other media section, because it is not marketing. Perhaps the marketing section could be joined to the Production section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.151.138 (talk • contribs)
Marketing has nothing to do with production. Again, please see various FA and GA film articles. Alientraveller 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Consistency is implemented in previous film's article. And Prince Caspian' production section is nowhere near as long as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Alientraveller 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I tried using the disscussion page, but you edited also and I lost what I had put down. For starters, I agree, perhaps, that the article is too short for sub-sections, and I will stop adding them. But that does not mean that you can add them in your own way like you did. Secondly, Transformers and Simpsons have absolutely nothing to do with Narnia, thus the articles may be different. Thirdly, I believe that there should be an In other media section with the video game in it, because it has nothing to do with the marketing. And lastly, I will let the Marketing section in as long as it is lengthened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.151.138 (talk • contribs)
Transformers and The Simpsons Movie are examples of recent films that show how to organize production, marketing and release. However, a Marketing section shall be created, come the release of the first trailer. Until then, I'm always happy with links to other articles. Alientraveller 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see where the other movies are good articles, however, if you haven't noticed, Prince Caspian is not even out yet. So we shouldn't be looking at those articles just yet. I do hope there is a In other media section added with the Soundtrack and Video game in it. And I wish you would put in the In other media section that you deleted in the first movie article. It supplied links to the two articles as well as giving more information. I apologize if I caused a disturbance, but I just want what is best for the article. I am glad that we were able to disscuss this, even though we were both clearly frustrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.151.138 (talk • contribs)
Well an "In other media" section was cleared from LWW as it felt redundant, and I do prefer articles to just focus on their subject and not make other articles redundant. I think Marketing will all fine and dandy come release, what with trailers and promotional deals... Alientraveller 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, though, we need to add some kind of link to the Video game and Soundtrack articles, like to the books and stuff.

Caspianconcept image

thumb|222px|The first promotional image for The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian There is dispute over whether this picture should be included in the article. What do other people think (besides alientraveller)? - E2MB the museblogger 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The image was previously fine as an identifying image for the subject of the article, but it's been replaced by the teaser poster for that same purpose. Additional images are supposed to meet fair use criteria, meaning that they should be directly tied to the content of the article. The promotional image does not appear to be significantly tied to any of the article's content, so any usage of the image would be decorative, which does not meet fair use criteria. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Production Blog Section

I've run across a disagreement with User:Alientraveller on the quoted section. Please give your opinion on this, and see if we can find a consensus between users. (See our discussion Here) Thanks!

Throughout the production of Prince Caspian, Disney has been publishing a blog, written by different members of the film team. The blog was kicked off on March 11, 2007 with a video post by director Andrew Adamson. Various other members of the crew have contributed written posts through the following months. On July 30th, 2007, the second video blog was hosted by cast member Ben Barnes (Caspian X). The video blog is located at http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/blog/

Microbyte 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Just curious, why are we placing these on the talk page? If you used it as a reference, it belongs in the actual article. (If you don't know, just ask, and there'll be a million people just waiting to help) If not, then it'd be best not to have these here. Thanks! Microbyte 23:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We haven't always got time once we find them. Alientraveller 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Microbyte, I'm not interested enough in this film series to invest time in it compared to the other film articles on my watchlist. I go through RSS feeds for film news, though, and when there's a potentially good citation for others to use, I provide it like I just did above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Andrew Adamson, Harry Gregson-Williams, Tommy Pearson (March 2008). Interview with Andrew Adamson & Harry Gregson-Williams (mp3) (Audio interview). Stage and Screen Online. Retrieved 2008-04-28. "Director Andrew Adamson and composer Harry Gregson-Williams meet Tommy Pearson at Abbey Road studios in London during the sessions for the second Chronicles of Narnia film, Prince Caspian. Andrew and Harry talk about the film in detail and outline their collaborations on the Chronicles of Narnia films..." —I haven't had a chance to listen to this one yet, but should it contain anything useful, you'll have to get the link added to the whitelist first (to check it out, remove "_spam_" from the above link). Steve T • C 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Release date

I thought studios were moving towards simultaneous worldwide releases to combat piracy - so why the huge gap between US and UK release dates? 86.132.141.14 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not for us to decide. Certainly, if anyone's got any citations as to why, that'd be welcome. Alientraveller (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's July 2 here in Sweden... Talk about gap. --81.233.196.49 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sweden shouldn't be mentioned per WP:MOSFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, WP:MOSFILMS only states that such information shouldn't be in the info box. It doesn't cover the main article, or (God forbid) the talk page. In fact, last time I checked, it was considered good form to put information not suitable for the article in the talk page.-- trlkly 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The first rule about Sweden: Don't talk about Sweden. 81.233.196.49 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

New poster

Not sure if the current poster needs to be replaced, but there's a new one. I think it would be good to replace it since it shows more of the cast, including Reepicheep. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lovely: it's now been uploaded. Alientraveller (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Henley lost her teeth?!

I find it very hard to believe that Georgia Henley lost her teeth during the prouduction of this film. My daughter is five years old, and she has lost her four front teeth. I imagine she'll be lossing her incisors and first molars soon, but I imagine she'll have the whole business wrapped up in a year or two, that would be age 6 or 7. Georgia is 12! I see that the fact is references, but I can't verify the reference myself. It jsut seems quite unbelievable, and if it is true, that it merits further comment. -00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. As someone who works around middle-schoolers (that's ages 11-14 around here) every day, kids - boys mostly, but girls too - are losing their teeth constantly. It is not unusual, and even if it were, no further comment is necessary or appropriate. --NetherlandishYankee (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Versus Iron Man

I added this latest in box office. It dethroned Iron Man from the top of the US and Canadian box office, after two weeks.BBC NEWS, Prince Caspian dethrones Iron Man But "Iron Man" led the foreign box office for a third weekend, with foreign total to $206 million, narrowly beating "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian."javno.com, 'Iron Man' Beats 'Prince' Overseas --Florentino floro (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And the point is? Wikipedia isn't a news site about which movies have dethroned each other. Alientraveller (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello! I am reviewing this article for GA status; if you have any comments, do not hesitate to let me know!spider1224 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, done reviewing. Here's my take on the subject:

1:Well written?--I am glad to say it passes there. You have plenty of citations listed, and I saw NO grammar errors. Well done! 2:Factually accurate?--Many sources, and excellent plot summary, and the ability to distinguish between fiction and reality; pass! 3:Broad in coverage?--Heck yeah, what don't you cover in here? Seriously? Cause I'm stumped. Anyway, pass. 4:Neutural point of view?--most definetly pass! I saw little or no personal pronouns in this passage. 5:Article stability?--Huzzah for no edit wars! Pass! 6:Images?--Ahh...images. I'll pass you here, but I'd like to see a few more, possible larger ones to break up the lenghty character section, or others. It just seemed like a lot of text, but the images that you had were good. Also, maybe an image from the movie (during a scene, etc.)

Overall, a job well done, and it passes! Can't wait to see it on the list for Featured Article! Now everyone go and review another article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider1224 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_Prince_Caspian/Archive_1&oldid=1090011252"