Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Unreliable sources

This posting on a fan web site is claimed to be an excerpt from an article from The Times of Malta, sent via electronic mail to the web site by a fan who doesn't give xyr real name. I've checked the Times of Malta archives for 2007-02-02 to 2007-02-04 and can find no such article. Uncle G 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC) "The new and dangerous quest takes them to the farthest edge of the Eastern world on board the mighty Dawn Treader." MIGHTY? It's about the size of tha Santa Maria, afaik. 162.93.249.11 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Note on typography section

The "Note on typography" section seems somewhat silly. Although I understand the grammatical rules discussed, its much too involved for the size of this article, and is rather overly involved for such a trivial grammatical matter, I'm not particularly well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines, however, such a section does seem to be overly exacting, reduce the readability of the article, and may even confuse readers ("Roman text" is somewhat obscure). If nobody objects, I will remove it, along with the note at the top. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

This article continues to be deleted, with the editor citing the impressive sounding acronym WP:FUTFILM.

WP:FUTFILM is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films, an article created 24 October 2007, which has only been edited by four editors.

I have added the appropriate {{essay}} tag to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films.

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films is only an essay, and editors can "Heed them or not at your own discretion." I strongly suggest the WP:FUTFILM editors, who are so eager to impose their own views by delete other editors work, put this article up for deletion and let the community decide whether it should be deleted. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to add an "essay" tag to justify creating your own article for a film that might not happen. Alientraveller (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, WP:FUTFILM is not a policy or guideline, it is an essay written by four people, one of those four is yourself. I did not create this article, I only added references to an existing article, which several people have written over a year and a half, and which you redirected with no discussion. You state that "[this] film that might not happen" yet provide no references for your unsourced opinion. On the other hand, I have provided sourced references that the movie will happen, in articles as late as this month. Why do you spend so much time deleting other people's hard work? Inclusionist (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Inclusionist. Alientraveller should be citing WP:NFF, in which an article should not exist yet if the film has not begun production. WP:FUTFILM just suggests steps to find a home for some content in an article with a broader scope, so we should all be happy to have these steps. :) Is there no way to expand the section this redirects to until filming begins? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erik, two of the four editors of WP:FUTFILM are now involved in this discussion. (more) Inclusionist (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The project pages may only have been actively edited by a small number of editors, but it's very clear that WP:NFF has the consensus agreement of the community through the sheer number of editors who cite it in AfD discussions and the like, and the number of administrators who close said deletion discussions per it. The guideline doesn't exist to ruin anyone's hard work. It exists for very good, practical reasons. The guideline prevents the creation of film articles the instant a project is announced in Variety or wherever, because experience has shown us that the intention to make a film often does not mean a film will be made. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can always get in the way of filmmaker's intentions, and without the guideline, the place would be full of stubby articles about films that were never made. Now, sometimes films that are more likely to be made than not, such as Dawn Treader, are caught up in this, but if we made an exception for these then that would only render the guideline toothless for all the Jurassic Park IV's out there (a film that was supposed to have been made in 2005). No-one's saying the available information can't be included; it's just the best place for it right now is at a parent article. Steve ^{T • C} 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify this edit summary: "this page exceeds Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films why not focus contribuign contnt?" I am not sure what you mean by "exceeds". I do enjoy working on contributing content for future films, but I am not as hard-pressed if the film is not a sure thing. Some examples of projects that have dragged their legs include Shantaram (film) and The Wheelman (film). Also, can we move past WP:FUTFILM? As it has been said, WP:NFF is the better one to cite here. WP:FUTFILM just suggests a better handling of the content. I saw your message at WT:AFD about userfying AFDs. That's the kind of thing this page suggests, but it's mostly procedural and not consensus-driven. The specific action taken would be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This image is not the real poster! It was made by a fan, so don't keep it on this Wikipedia article! 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.24.80 (talk)

Objection your honor: Although the image was indeed snagged from a fan site, the fansite cited the image from Walden Media's own website. I checked it out, and they have a logo. You can check it out for yourself. [[1]] -Danrvrs

Teaser Trailer?

Is the teaser trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader not released yet? (In this case, I think?) Formula 86 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be very quiet! The trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be attached to Toy Story 3 on June 18, 2010. It will be released online a day before. 68.191.69.187 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of 2 Pevensies and White Witch

As it is now confirmed Peter and Susan make an appearance somehow in the film, as does the white witch, how should we add them in the article, in the cast list I am adding them as I see fit (pinning them as other), but if anybody has another suggestion then please feel free to change it. Appropriate references will be submited so you know I am not making it up =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancraigboyes (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery?

Where did the last sentence in the Plot section come from? "Only an entirely uncharted journey to Aslan's Country - a voyage of destiny and transformation for each of those aboard the Dawn Treader - can save Narnia, and all the astonishing creatures in it, from an unfathomable fate." I can (barely) stomach "voyage of destiny and transformation", but "save Narnia"? "from an unfathomable fate"? -- Elphion (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence comes from one of the official plot synopsis's provided by Walden Media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.28.109 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's marketing hype that can safely be deleted? -- Elphion (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer

Is there some reason *not* to link unambiguously to ~~(or even to mention)~~ the trailer? -- Elphion (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason. The trailer is contained in many external links and in a few months, the trailer won't be notable unless made controversial for some reason. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 01:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now two treailers are mentioned but the same link is given for both:
http://www.narniaweb.com/2010/06/the-voyage-of-the-dawn-treader-trailer-is-here
-- Elphion (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3D?

The article doesn't seem to say one way or the other whether it was film in 3D or if it was filmed in 2D and is being converted. Does anyone know which way they're doing it? My guess is it's being converted because it was filmed last year before the "3D craze". For An Angel (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) It is being converted. Was on several news sites and fan sites.(Dylancraigboyes (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Addition of "Film" to the page name

I have run into a little confusion with links to the book and the movie. I find it reasonable that the appellation: (film) should be added to the name of the entire page.

It would thus read: The Chronicles of Narnia : The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (film).