User talk:Erik

300 movie

Dont revert the fact that spartans engaged in boy soldier sexual relationships. Look at the spartan wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Costos (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My edits are direct criticism of the movie itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I saw that archive. Well it looked like many users agree that we need a section talking about the misconceptions. Right? And most of the information I put on the section were from the battle of Thermopylae article, which is a cited article. So it's a fact that Persian army is usually exaggerated and that the Persian immortals didn't look like barbaric soldiers.--Arad 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I really don't understand how refs work, and I thought that removing them in one place didn't affect where they might be referenced in another place. Corvus cornix 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Personally I'm against such a section for various reasons. If such a section existed it would be mainly edited by users who care only about their patriotic integrity and not about the film. The article would be turned into a pov-fork of Battle of Thermopylae, edited by people who have most likely never seen the film. The edits we have reverted so far are already a proof of this, they all contained POV and OR, written by people who haven't even seen the film yet. The new section would become huge and the Talk page of the article would be flooded by irrelevant information. In my opinion, as long as the film makers claim an "adaptation", there's no basis to exert criticism on its historical accuracy. Whether the graphic novel article can be subject to such criticism is a whole different story. Furthermore I don't think that 300 can be compared to Apocalypto, Braveheart and other films who have indeed attracted comments on their historical accuracy. This is due to two main factors involved: Firstly the "adaptation" factor, and secondly the "political" factor (Greeks vs Persians, West vs East, USA vs Iran etc). I think that only a small number of critics will make comments on historical accuracy, and I'm of the opinion that they should not be taken into consideration (for the reasons already mentioned). If for some reason the majority of critics focus on the historical aspect, then of course things will be different, but I somehow really doubt that this will happen. In my opinion many people in the media will link theories about USA propaganda against Iran etc. Even if for some reason this was to be included in the article, I still see no reason to have a section about the actual history when there are several other articles dealing with it, already in a polemic and vandal-attractive state. I think the article needs to keep a strictly neutral position and avoid any polemic content, just like the film's creators have. The film is an adaptation of a graphic novel, which in turns deals with the battle of Thermopylae, this is all that needs to be said. Anyone who wants to learn about the graphic novel or the actual story will have the relevant wikilinks in the article's first line. Miskin 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think that reading current political commentary into 300 is about as dumb as it gets. I read the cited article (endnote #52), and kept sighing at the over-politicization of movies, and kept hoping it was all some sort of grand, practical joke like the over-analysis of the Family Circle comic strip. However it isn't a joke. There are quite simply chuckleheads who will read anything political into a film. What's next? Batman Begins as a platform for gun control? Star Wars as a burning effigy for the lack of Asian-folk in the universe? Brazil acting as a political argument against bureaucracy? (wait, that last one is actually quite apt). There simply must be reviews out here where some bonehead didn't go off the deep end and try to turn a movie review into a quasi-manifesto against the war. I saw it last week here in Chicago at a screening at the IMAX, and I kinda liked it. There is a lot of stuff that only guys will get and appreciate, and some pretty silly dialogue in it. There is a lot of sex and nudity that is probably unnecessary, and I think it will be very popular with the male gay community. What film with muscle-bound men in leather speedos and capes isn't going to be popular? It is a film about a period in western history. It is a mostly ficticious accounting of Sparta's actions in the war with Persia. While quite similar to the comic book (some cinematography was specifically set up to be precisely like the comic), the secondary plotline concerning Leonidas' wife was completely missing in the source material. It is not a movie about east versus west, or islam versus Christianity (the actual war predates all of that). Any clown who suggests such should have their motives severely questioned. It does a disservice to the film.Arcayne 09:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I never saw the modern day correlations in the film. The closest thing it reminded me of were the fight scenes and speeches from Braveheart...if they were filmed by the cinematographer from the Matrix. I could however, see the close relationships to the film that Miller drew as his inspiration from - The 300 Spartans. I went out and rented it after seeing 300. It was pretty tame in comparison but - and this is important - the earlier film was also considered to have been a metaphor for the Cold War, which was going on during the movie. Apparently, sacrifice in the face of insurmountable odds knows no time, place, President or conflict. 300 is an abstract about war Itself, I think.

War fought by guys in leather speedos.Arcayne 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://theworld.org/?q=taxonomy_by_date/2/20070308. Azam Ali speaks about how she initially saw the Persians and was hesitant about her participation, but that she found the director to be an amazing person to work with, who repeatedly was asked about the 'Is bush leonidas or xerxes?' thing, but held that it was just an adaptation of Miller's novel, adn that she agrees, that's what it is. ThuranX 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take a look at the article, when I was attempting to make some edits to the Political Aspects, the edit button took me to the international section. That seems like a pretty damned odd glitch, and it is repeatable. Do you think someone messed with the edit button link?Arcayne 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Why did you remove my references and then go that the fact is needed when I provided the reference? I just don't understand what you're doing so please explain. 2 March 2007 Xleax

Questions

I was wondering; if a user is the subject of an article, how does he or she correct an article without running the risk of OR? As well, Let's say a contributor had an opportunity to interview a film director about a film. How is that information attributable? How can it be used and cited in an article here in WP?Arcayne 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes "dropping out of" The Dark Knight

Ok..... it seems that pretty much everyone hated Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. She even received a Razzie Award for her performance. Her people are obviously trying to simply preserve her reputation by stating that she just didn't want to reprise her role as Rachel in TDK and that she had "scheduling conflicts." Please! Do you really think she'd rather play second fiddle to Queen Latifah in some little B-movie comedy instead of starring in one of the biggest movies of 2008? Warner Brothers is going along with Holmes' reps just to be kind to Holmes. You and I and everyone else knows that she was either not invited back or she quit because she would've been dropped if she had not dropped out. I think it's just misleading to only print this on The Dark Knight film page:

"In January 2007, Holmes had turned down an offer to reprise her role as Rachel Dawes due to scheduling conflicts. The studio is currently seeking a new actress to portray the character."

I actually thought she did a decent job and I really had no qualms with her performance. But these formal lies are just nonsense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christflame3 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spiderman 3

Take a look over there, the stupid 'let's use a screencap of Venom' issue has come up YET again. ThuranX 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about all this talk about the image you, ThuranX and Bignole apparently agreed to wait for instead of allowing other images to serve the article until then. I am meeting considerable resistance from Big and Thuran about its placement, and I am simply not understanding why, or even if there is a legitimate reason for preventing the image from being placed. I am thinking that if this cannot get resolved within our circle, I will likely ask for an outside editor to weigh in.Arcayne 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post in the Discussion page. I can understand that you might wish to limit the number of pictures in the article. I am not suggesting we load up the article. Frankly the sideview of Brock's head getting covered with the symbiote is not a very good image, as it doesn't explain production or allow us a good image of either Brock or the symbiote or Venom, and I recommend replacing it with a better view of Venom. It is not a blurry picture, nor is it improperly tagged. It meets the criteria for inclusion according to Wikipedia, and your reasons listed in the article do not seem to represent current WP policy or guidelines, and in fact seem to be supporting a willful agreement between editors to revert any pictures that does not concur with where you have previously determined the article is to go. I guess what I am taking issue with here is a determination to run this article according to a set of criteria different than usual for inclusion in Wikipedia.Arcayne 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your explanation is reasonable enough for me. Thanks for explaining it.Arcayne 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bond, James Bond

Have you ever heard of breaking a plot up into subsections by location? Casino Royale (2006 film) is doing this, and their reasoning is "it looks better". I'm just curious if I'm the only one that thinks it looks horrible, and is just an excuse to add more images. I mentioned it on the talk page. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the headers were gone, but I left the discussion up for anyone that might disagree with their removal, or want to voice an opinion about why they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Hope you are enjoying your WikiBreak. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300

Sigh, this is getting horrible. Political correctness is mad. The talk page is now becoming a complete mess too due to people registering too soon to get their agenda across and not understanding the rules of Wikipedia. Do you think there can ever be a thing like a sudden GA film? I mean, most people just come to dump the plot section. I thought Casino Royale would have become GA real quick and then, well, shit happens. WikiNew 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik. I don't think that saying that it is loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae is POV, as not that much specific info is known save for that of Herodotus (written long after the fact and likely based on individual accounts and tales gone tall in the retelling by old soldiers and the like). Arad is undoubtedly pushing POV, but even a busted clock is right twice a day. I don't think it is necessarily POV to suggest that a film takes certain liberties with the mundanity of history, and a comic book ever more so.Arcayne 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, I hate to start swearing uncontrollably but some vandal moved the page! Ugh! I moved it back but now the revision history starts back there. WikiNew 11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Input

How would you handle this almost entirely unsourced article? I am not even sure what category it falls under to ask for an editor to take a gander.Arcayne 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 movie

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Thank you. --Mardavich 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think it was User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me who protected it, as evidenced by [1] this edit.Arcayne 14:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive warnings are not accusations, I just want to make sure you're familiar with WP:3RR. --Mardavich 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me did not semi-protect 300. This edit is just a move-protection of the page. "{sprotected}" is the common and appropriate tag for pages that are semi-protected. --Mardavich 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eck, I don't know, somebody shafted lots of reviews into the section. I tried to axe some, but they were restored. I really don't know. I simply went and spruced up Raiders of the Lost Ark a little. As it is, 300 is an unstable article. WikiNew 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article. I've tried to remove some WP:OR in the form of unsupported synthesis of books written between one and three decades ago, long before the movie or graphic novel. I'm not interested in getting 3RR'd about this, and I'm barely willing to even stay here on WP at all, so I'm letting someone else know. ThuranX 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd give you and ThuranX a heads-up about Mardavich. He sent me essentially the same sort of 3RR warning he sent you , but is reporting me for 3RR. I don't think I have anything to worry about, but you guys might want to stay sharp.Arcayne 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC) And of course you can comment on the matter if you wish. Arcayne 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of this thread and editor: Talk:300_(film)#Any_info_re:_Snyder_and_Miller.27s_religion.3F. ThuranX 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported Mardavich to the incident board after he reported me to the 3RR committee, they said "unrelated" in the incident board. Maybe you can shed some light on it. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-Up

I know that you, ThuranX and ~~Bignole~~ recently were "warned" by User:Mardavich about reverting edits and 3RR and the like. I wanted to let you know that he unsuccessfully tried to get me blocked for 3RR. It was a close thing, as the admin looking at the complaint probably only skimmed through the complaint, as is usual, and Bignole intervened, preventing the block from happening. I wanted to let you know that this user, and likely others, might be targeting others making edits contrary to their POV push, and if you are running out of reverts or move into target territory, it might be helpful for us to watch each other's backs. Either way, I wanted to let you know of the tactics being utilized.Arcayne 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - just wanted to let you know, pal. Go see Children of Men, why dontcha?! :)Arcayne 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Wikipedia policies are to be respected no matter what the user's intentions are, reminding users who are in danger of violating WP:3RR is not harassment, it's an essential part of the process. --Mardavich 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this fine gentleman is up to his tricks again with me, too.Arcayne 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and he decided to include you in this AN/I complaint. He now has three separate 3RR reports and three seaparate AN/I complaints filed, revolving around either ThuranX, Bignole, CovenantD, you and/or I.Arcayne 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content from other people's user_talk

Erikster, you deleted a comment I left on another user's talk page. It seems like you thought I was re-adding content that had already been there, but that it not the case. Looking at the page history, you can clearly see that that was my first and only edit to Wiki-newbie's talk page. You also seem to be under the impression that it's legitimate to delete things entirely from your own talk page. This is generally incorrect. No user "owns" their talk page--the talk page exists to further to goal of creating an encyclopedia, and in that function it serves as a record just like any other talk page. Other users will many times legitimately want to know another user's past behavior and disputes, etc, for example, when weighing an adminship application. While it's more typical for users to refactor their own talk pages, it's fairly irregular for third-party to delete messages from one user to another on a talk page that isn't their own! Please be more careful and less hasty in the future.—Perceval 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of rushing pages

Have you read the new reports about the Superman sequel? Routh confirmed that there is no title, that they are still working on it, and that production has been pushed because Singer has several other projects lined up ahead of the Superman sequel. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm basically ignoring that whole "contraversy" thing. If those people want to bicker about it, fine. There are plenty of other films that don't have that problem, and whose pages need major work. I hope you don't go, you're a real asset to this place. I think there are plenty of other ways for you to share your knowledge and skills without having to worry about stuff like 300. I say, if it's going to cause problems, just ignore that aspect of it. There's plenty of help needed in other areas, and if these people want the film to reach even GA status, then they'll have to learn how to cooperate with each other for the betterment of the article. How's the spring break thing coming? At the beach? casino? or just lounging with the 'rents? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. Sometimes I just sit here editing, and at the same time thinking, "I really need to do something else". Even though I do other things, it seems that even when I'm not on here I still thinking about what others are doing to the articles, how much I'll have to clean up. There are times that I wish I had not discovered this place, but others that I'm glad I did. Good luck on that internship decision, my vote is for Google. I hear their work "environment" is crazily relaxed. If/when you return I look forward to finally seeing the outcome of that Fight Club article. I showed the film to my gf the other night and she was like "that was weird". After watching the commentary, and then re-watching it with her, I couldn't help but laugh harder than I ever did every time I noticed another allusion to the truth behidn the narrator. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, school's more important and should come first, followed closely by your personal social life. Boy, I can type the right things, just can't follow them..lol. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fountain (film)

Do you think the article is worthy for FA? I'd like to nominate it. WikiNew 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're back soon, because I'm prepping Jurassic Park (now GA) for FAC. I'll look into sprucing up The Fountain. I'm good at writing review information for films I've not seen. WikiNew 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer I weigh in here, or int he article's Discussion Page? Arcayne 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather

I was hoping you could run over to The Godfather article and look in the talk page. I've been having an argument with another editor over some misconceptions that he has over what a synopsis should be, specifically this one. If you could come in and weigh your opinion in. I'd appreciate it. :) The Filmaker 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you do come over, and if you see fit to comment, you might make it clear in the interest of transparency that you're there at The Filmmaker's request. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving 300 Talk

Done. Arcayne 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 official website

The Pirates of the Caribbean sites are great fun considering they let you tour the movie's story. Any idea as to how to cite it? WikiNew 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Films

Saw The Number 23 recently; it was surprisingly good, with a creepy mood that worked very well. And dude, Eccleston as the Dark Rider? Awwwwwesome! Apparently, he must have liked the good money that comes from scifi (Dr. Who, Heroes). I feel as excited as I did when I heard Spider-Man was being made. lol Arcayne 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones vandal

Care to sort out this fella who repeatedly posts his bullshit about Ford not playing the role? User:63.138.195.178 WikiNew 18:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting film articles

Hey Erik, I tend to find that PRODding film articles, and especially film adaptations of popular games, comics and books, tends to result in the article going to AfD anyway, so I just go straight there - I should add that I'm not sure if such deletions can ever be uncontroversial in the way that other articles can be. Anyways, thanks for the heads-up on questionable films, I'll slowly go through that later tonight. I hate it when I get these sudden urges to purge dead movies - it's soooo time consuming, and often difficult to tell what films are really dead. See you around, Rje 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-man soundtrack

Erik, the track listing on your article Spider-man (soundtrack) is wrong. You put down the DVD titles. I say find the track listing or I am deleting that part of your article. Thank You. Crocodileman 4:58, 23 March, 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk about Fight Club

Sure, I'll take a look this weekend. I also have to address your concerns in Fountain, but I've noticed that V posts there. His editing style doesn't really suit me, and I really don't want to interact with him all that much. You and WikiNew are aces in my book, so I'll help out, but I am going to avoid that cat as much as possible.
-Arcayne 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Happening (2008 film)

Please review my edits before you revert. The speculative information I removed after I reverted the edits was my own, not yours. The additional information on 20th Century Fox I added has TWO sources and is written to state this may have been their reaction. Since you (or I) have no secondary information on the reliability of ANY source I see no basis for stating that one is more reliable than another. The propose of citing sources is so the reader can draw their own conclusion as to whether what is stated is valid. 69.72.2.72 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assist

(thanks for the assist on RPP) -Arcayne 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of Steel

Hey, I know you're busy, working on Fight Club and all, but if you get a moment could you venture over to List of Smallville episodes. I've recently reformatted the whole page, and I nominated it for "Featured List" status. I know you don't deal too much in list articles, but it shouldn't take too long to look at (if you manage to get over there). The only criticisms I've had so far with it so far have been aesthetic components. If you can look at it, great..if not it's no biggy (no pun intended). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes episodes are filmed in one order and then released on television in a different order. The "codes" act as "dates" so to speak. They say what order the episode was filmed in. Generally it's in a linear order, but every so often you'll find one that was filmed later, or earlier. There was one that was filmed way out of order. I think (and I'm just trying to remember) that one was filmed in one season, but not shown until the next season, and when it was shown it was several episodes after that season had started. Yeah, I had the "#" concern as well. I'll change that to be a bit more specific. I was trying to go for the DVD box colors for the borders of each season. If you think it looks good, as far as FL is concerned, I'd appreciate the vote. I already appreciate your input, especially on the "#" thing (which I'm about to go change right now). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant I looked at the color of the DVD boxsets for the color of the borders. The production codes I got from TV.com, which, apparently from what I've checked, is where the other FLers got their codes from. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale

I didn't mean to be offensive but look if this article is going to be a featured article eventually Wikinewbie is going to have to let people try to improve it. I too am a seasoned editor and have written countless GA's and been given awards for my work also on Bond films -so my work has clearly been of some value. I wouldn't have had three articles on the front page in three days if I didn't know how to improve or write an article. And that cultural form is important and that scene took an enormous amount of time to develop and is discussed very much in the behind the scenes look at the dvd. YOur suggestion seems good how about I add it in the talk page until we can decide what to do with it? Sorry about my tone but i don't appreciate someone reverting as if I am some young kid messing it up ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will apologise now sorry its not like me but I also find it offensive when any attempts at trying to improve it or at least guide it are thrown out within seconds. All the best and good idea -there are some important elements missing about the filming which is discussed strongly in the behnd the scenes analysis of the film ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that there should be a whole new section on a behind the scenes look at the film covering all the details of how they created certain scenes and the car crash flipping seven times how they did this. This is what will be needed to take this to the special level. The article already looks very good ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe scene was filmed at a construction site in the Bahamas which Michael Wilson had seen back in 1977 during the filming of the spy who loved me and it is still abandoned today. It had to double for Madagascar. It took an enormous aamount of effort for them to rig the cranes and to choroegraph the scenes with the parkour techniques and this is a sigificant scene which is discussed in high detail on the dvd analysis. The practise for the scene was all done in studios in Prague until filming moved to Bahamas where they had to move it 200 feet in the air! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me I aint called Blofeld for nothing!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we share the same great taste in films though! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article is not only missing such details on the production but has anyone ever thought about a section on the script writing and cinematography? Why doesn't the article evenm mention the script and Comparisons with novel? THis isn't even covered. 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A Little Guidance, Please

A fellow user asked me to lend him a hand with the Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan articles, as they were pretty overrun with POV pushing nonsense. Currently this user, a suspected sockpuppet for another user, is working very hard to place a poorly cited, and certainly damaging piece of information into the article. I've reverted it twice, due to the BLP policy on removing damaging info that isn't cited or is non RS. I am not sure how to handle this person, as I am going to run out of reverts right quick, and this guy doesn't seem to be acting in good faith. What to do? Arcayne 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all flow for ice floe

I am not sure that my definition of sentence flow is the same as yous. Could you elaborate? Arcayne 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I bought it this morning as soon as my local Border's opened, and you know I'll be watching the extras for mention of the Shantih or the laughter of children. Oh, what a joy it will be if they are mentioned. The only doenside will be that I won't be able to see a certain editor's face as I add it in, properly cited. Arcayne 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you saw the caption regarding the laughter/chattering of children and the final Shantih? You might have noted that the disembodied voices weren't referenced in the soundtrack listing, like music would be. The bonus features don't speak to it, mostly addressing the deep doodoo that the world is in (essentially that CoM is a portrait of mankind now), the camera work and the production design. Personally, I find it infuriating that something that actually has substance to the film cannot go into the article about the film. It seems pointlessly anal to disinclude it. Arcayne 04:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The future is inevitable....

....just not predictable. It's my opinion that when they start the actual production, then it should be made. Before then, most "pre-production" work is just looking for a place to shoot, and doesn't mean that a film even has a budget yet. Even so, look how much 'pre-production" work was done for the 19 years worth of Superman films, and they even paid people to work on stuff. Usually, once a film hits "production" you can usually say, "it's coming out" because studios aren't going to lose money after that. I'm of the opinion that in "pre" state anything can happen. Writing a script doesn't ensure you are going to make a movie, look what just recently happened with Joss Whedon on Wonder Woman. I think all "future films" should hold on being their own article until production starts, because by then you usually have enough information and stability in the film to say that it IS going to come out. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like individual television articles. WikiProject TV says don't make them unless they can be supported and aren't just fancruft with large plots, but they also say don't do mass AfDs on them either. I think we should take it one film at a time, but first present a case to WikiProject Films. I think if we can agree on it there, then we can circumvent the passionate, but stubborn editors that film that films like JPIV should have their own article even when they aren't in production, let alone preproduction. I personally don't like the "Cancelled Superman films" page, because there is nothing notable that I probably couldn't sum up into 1 paragraph and place on the Superman Returns page. But, as much as I don't like it, it's a prime example for us to say "look at this article and say 'pre-production = film will be made'". Yeah, the film was made; it only took almost 20 years. As for those two films you listed, I'm only familiar with Logan's Run, but I think that is something that should be on either the novel or the original film's page. I'm thinking the novel, because it's probably like War of the World's where it isn't a remake but a new interpretation of the source material. It seems the other is a novel as well, and I think it could be summed up there too. From what I've seen, people want to include every minute detail that comes along so they can justify the existence of the article. If Movies.com mentions in passing that Singer is not directing the Superman sequel, people want to use that as an excuse to recreate the article, because "there's talk about it currently". Speaking of which, I keep having to delete Superman: The Man of Steel (film) and Superman: The Man of Steel(film) pages. One person didn't put a space in so they could bypass the protections. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. I have an exam tomorrow that I'm trying to write up an outline for. Wiki is being a bit distracting right now, so I'm going to have to try and tear myself away for some time so that I can write that. I'm not the only one depending on the outline. Also, it's ok to go about it slow. I want to make sure we get all our ducks in a row before we present anything to anyone of authority, or even to a general consensus on WikiProject Films. The articles that are currently in question aren't going anywhere, and all they can do is get more stable information in the future (which isn't a bad thing), and I'd like to be able to have an answer for anything that oppositional people may want to throw there. What do you think about starting a sandbox where we can work on the proposed guidelines for future films? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Well, I'd better get to that outline. Good luck on your exams. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good luck on them. If all else fails however, you could dummy up a theology degree and go to work for WP. :D Arcayne 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you get the time, could you head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (second nomination). I'm curious as to what more editors think. The page was nominated before, but no conclusion was drawn from the votes, they were too close. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd have no problem with a list of characters. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

Wow. I saw a lot of "per so-n-so" in that AfD. Not much discussion going on there. I didn't even know about the "per nom" rule, that was interesting to see. I actually don't like seeing the "it's listcruft, fancruft" on this current AfD for the Friday characters. Even if they are voting in the direction that I believe in, it's just weaker arguments what won't look good to an Admin when under review. But what can you do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about harrassment. That's something that's really hard to prove on here, it has to be really clear and concise. I have noticed that he's singled me out, he's only rebuttle is "it meets WP:FICT". Other than that he just dismisses any other argument with "that's not true"-type of statements. It seems that recent votes have provided no discussion, just "it's useful" or "per so-n-so". I hope a clear consensus can be reached on here. I don't mind a character list, if it actually has character information and doesn't turn into a "this is how they died" list. I see a character list for these films turning into that. Have some "oh, he does this in the movie, BUT HE DIES BY...." Do you understand what I mean? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Filmaker says he uses PowerDVD to take photos of film frames. Alientraveller 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoM DVD

I haven't watched the features just yet, as I'm on vacation. I might view them this weekend. The transcripts for Slavoj Zizek's analysis have been online since the DVD was first released in the UK. —Viriditas | Talk 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-man 3 Soundtrack

Okay dude. That's cool. I didn't see it. Valaqil 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. In that case, thanks and good job! Valaqil 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I'm so sorry. I didn't notice that the page already existsed under a different name. It wasn't linked in the original article. :( Valaqil 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Thanks bunches. You are amazingly prompt, and extraordinarily helpful. Big kudos to you. Valaqil 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit daunted by the prospect of writing new articles. I've limited myself to hunting news and doing simple grammar/spelling fixes, if only for ease of contribution on my end. Thanks for the offer. I'll take you up on it, should I choose to try one. Valaqil 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past Vote

Oops, missed that bit there. Arcayne 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You told me to ask, so here's a quick question for you: I've seen info boxes at the top of some pages that designate that certain IP addresses are shared by "x". Where do I find those? I can't seem to locate them. Valaqil 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user did some vandalism to a couple of pages. I ran a WHOIS and found that it's a university in FL. I wanted to add a box at the top to make a note that it's shared. (Obviously, we don't want to leap to an immediate block on a shared IP, and someone else may not bother on the WHOIS.) Valaqil 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, here is an example of something similar to what I'm looking for: User talk:199.209.144.224