Jump to content

Talk:Stardust (2007 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move page

[edit]

This page should be moved to Stardust (2007 film) as there is a film with the same name made in 1974. --Nehrams2020 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between mediums

[edit]

May I suggest the removal of the section "Differences from the print version"? The content constitutes original research in providing your own analysis of two separate sources. It would be more encyclopedic to have a Writing subsection under the Production section in which all the major changes are pointed out by independent, secondary sources, and explained if possible. In the adaptation from one medium to another, there will obviously be differences in the process. It is best to identify only the changes that have real-world context, since the information is encyclopedic. I would suggest taking a look at Road to Perdition#Writing and The Dark Is Rising (film)#Writing for how this has been implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make some good points. But for the sake of fairly considering all alternatives approach, I'd like to offer my view. I found Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory very helpful. Lists of discrepancies are much more factual and less expository (or argumentative) than the suggestions you cite, and thus provide better reference material. I cannot speak for the previous list on this page, but such lists are not necessarily "original research," since they needn't derive independent conclusions, but merely restate items directly from each work. Traditional encyclopedias do chain themselves to prose for explanations, and that's usually a good idea. But in certain situations, a list is more helpful to the researcher. In those rare situations, wikipedia should not strive to be encyclopedic, but "wikipedic!" Anxious to hear more thoughts here. --Thomas B 19:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User6985 (talk • contribs).
It wasn't necessarily encyclopaedic in nature, but here is the list I typed up when I was originally expanding the article. I believe it is necessary for film adaptations to note where differences were made as these represent the view of the director/writer as opposed to the original author/creator. I just hadn't gotten back to this as my attention went elsewhere.
  • Secundus is alive for a portion of the film. In the novel he is already dead before the three surviving brothers - Primus, Tertias, Septimus - appear at their father's death bed.
  • Tristan Thorn's adoptive mother and half-sister are not in the film.
  • Tristan does not have a furry pointy ear.
  • The talking tree does not appear in the film.
  • The role of Captain Shakespeare (Robert DeNiro) is greatly expanded and changed from the novel.
  • The death of Tertius is different from that in the novel. (He dies by poisoned wine, but the wine is given to him by his brother, not a servant girl.)
  • Tristan becomes a star at the end of the movie, instead of passing of old age.
  • The method of the death of the unicorn at the Inn is different.
  • The spell holding Tristan's mother (named Una in the film, unnamed in the print version) is dependent upon the death of Ditchwater Sal as opposed to a convergence of fate (Until the Moon loses her daughter and two Thorns become one.)
  • The action sequence at the end of the film does not appear in the novel.
  • Lamia's two sisters are left to die of old age in the novel instead of dying in combat.
  • Victoria marries Humphrey as opposed to the much older shopkeeper Mr. Monday.
  • The time span of the film is one week while the print version takes several weeks.
  • Tristan's burned hand becomes a testament to his love in the print version while it hardly appears burned in the film - aside from a wince shortly after the burn, it does not appear again.
  • Ferdy the Fence is a new character.
  • The Market on the Faerie (Stormhold in the film) side of the Wall occurs rarely, while in the film the Market is always present.

Pejorative.majeure 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the way the Babylon candle worked was different. In the novel, one walked while the candle was lite and could walk very far doing so. Instead of lighting the candle with Tristan's father, he gets past the wall, meets a dwarf and then learns how to use the candle. Tristan has the special magical power to know where anything in 'magic' land is. This was part of the evidence that he was not born in Wall. The witches were not killed because their time had not come. But after their final encounter, the acorn that would sprout the tree, which would be used to make a cradle for the boy who would slay them, was planted.Subanark 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a spoiler tag!

[edit]

Just noticed it needed a spoiler tag. 97.82.212.40 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry — Wikipedia contains spoilers. Encyclopedic coverage of a subject includes coverage of endings, so spoiler warnings are deprecated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There should be a spoiler. I've added one back. The plot section for a movie, especially a new one, should have a spoiler warning. That's what they're for. -Pyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.35.141 (talk) 04:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. The plot section will contain spoilers for the plot, no matter what you do. Annie D 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section is a review of the whole plot and not a short synopsis or summary. 211.29.246.56 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are describing what happens in the movie, with specific references, you are, by nature, spoiling the story. You can provide a general context of the plot without providing specific spoilers. The two are not the same thing. For example, the plot in the Little Red Riding Hood would be a story about a girl and a wolf, disguised as her grandmother. If you are describing the entire story, then there should be spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyke 64.230.35.141 (talk) 05:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

That's true. That's why the opening paragraph of the article should contain a one-line introduction to the story without spoilers. I see the article doesn't have one yet, maybe you can add it? But the plot section itself will contain spoilers, that's unavoidable. There was a discussion about the usage of spoiler tags, and the consensus was that it is redundant to use them in "Plot" section. Their use is now restricted to other sections where it is not immediately clear that there would be spoilers, such as the "Production", "Background", so on so forth. Annie D 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am not entirely familiar with the discussion, I did not participate in it. That said, an encyclopedia by definition, organizes and stores information for consumption. This is its purpose. If the standards of organization make sense only to those who create, and not those who use, it loses value. As I tried to explain previously, there's an implicit belief that one is reading a plot, they are reading an overview of what happens, in a *general* context. As this article enters into specific details, to a layman like myself, a spoiler warning seems reasonable. I am unsure if this fits the convention of the creators of such articles or not, but I would venture a guess it would be the best manner to organize said information, at least until the section is organized to not be so specific and/or warn users that it divulges the entire tale. -Pyke

For now. I've replaced the spoiler tag (which is not required in plot sections) with a general {{current fiction}} tag over the whole article. This can be removed when the film has had wide exposure. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this needs a spoiler tag too, IT REALLY DOES!!!! This was user:crazyfrengy I just didn't bother to log in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.1.55 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please shorten!

[edit]

Too long, Clanky, tooooooo long! Please shorten the synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.51.150 (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 13, 2007

It's also terribly written. Most noticeable is the tense changing all over the place. Gemfyre 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the section to a rewrite of the official synopsis found at the movie site. The previous version was far too long per #2 of WP:IINFO. If someone can rewrite the plot to conform to the guidelines at WP:MOSFILMS#Plot, they are welcome to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the UK opening so late?

[edit]

Considering the film is based on a British author's story, set in "England", and mostly filmed in the UK, it's pretty annoying. We very rarely have to put up with such massive delays these days, so is there an official reason for the huge gap in opening dates between North America and Britain? 86.132.137.224 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the number of prints produced for a film is much lower than the total number of cinemas it gets shown in world wide due to their cost. It is quite common for the prints to be shipped between countries (hence the staggered release dates). So the print shown in a UK cinema may have been to the USA and Australia previously. This practice will likely continue until digital cinema brings the cost of duplication down to the reasonable levels (although it'll probably be a while before they have comparable quality). --James 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Late opening maybe - but over two months is unusual, and is ridiculous. The gap for "Sweeney Todd" is one month or so, and for "The Golden Compass" the releases were nearly simultaneous. Two months is simply not fair for a film like "Stardust", full stop. I didn't go to see it at all partly out of protest, though I know it will make no difference unless thousands do likewise. 86.132.141.14 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

[edit]

Part 1

[edit]

Part 2

[edit]

Part 3

[edit]
  • Alex Dueben (July 24, 2007). "Neil Gaiman on Stars and Sand". Archived from the original on 2012-06-14.
  • INT: Neil Gaiman
  • Lev Grossman (July 26, 2007). "Geek God". Time Magazine.
  • Storyteller Gaiman wishes upon a star
  • Exclusive: Stardust Director Matthew Vaughn
  • All of a sudden, his fantasies are turning to reality
  • Courting Fantasy Fans (and Everyone Else)
  • Pfeiffer's walk on the dark side [permanent dead link‍]
  • NEIL GAIMAN'S MAGIC HOUR
  • Michelle Pfeiffer enjoys her summer of villainy

Part 4

[edit]

Part 5

[edit]

Part 6

[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard

[edit]

Neither the actor or the actress that play Bernard (the man who is turned into a goat and then a girl) are listed. I think it's Mackenzie Crook, but I'm not sure - --Midasminus (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDB, its Jake Curran ... Bernard and Olivia Grant ... Girl Bernard, but we don't need to list everyone. -- Beardo (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditchwater Sal

[edit]

I added this to the article before the film was released only to have it edited out by a user who was later banned. At that time however, I thought the edit was due to the quality of my reference.

The actress Billie Whitelaw was originally cast to play the character of Ditchwater Sal [5]; however on the first day of principle shooting in Wester Ross, it was found that she was unable to remember her lines and she was removed from the project. Her lines were later re-filmed with Melanie Hill.

This has significance as her appearance was hyped up in pre-production (Part of her Big Comeback along with Hot Fuzz) the difficulty is that there are no references that back up either her removal from the project or the reasons for it (I have only personal knowledge of the reasons) Intrestingly many reviews of the film (both in cinema and on DVD) still state she *did* appear in the movie. - Stuart Jamieson 149.254.217.230 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sources about her addition to the film and pre-production hype would help show that her being removed was notable. -- 109.77.241.135 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Above link is dead but Archived however it only states that Billie Whitelaw was on set, it doesn't say about her replacement. -- 109.76.158.242 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot - Too Long vs. Too Short?

[edit]

Just curious as to whether anyone else feels that while the previous plot summary was probably longer than it should have been, the current plot summary is rather shorter than it perhaps should be. It also reads a bit like marketing fluff to me. Doniago (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about a “differences from book” section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.191.219 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

I’m really curious about this: The article has said for about a year and a half (until I edited it yesterday) that the movie’s budget was $70 million, citing a source that reported it as $88.5 million. Why did this stand? —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more references to the $70 million budget than to the $88.5 million figure. [6]. It would require going through the history but I suspect that at some point either the figure was changed by an editor who did not check/change the reference, or the reference was added to satisfy a request to add one to the budget and the figure wasn't compared with the one in the reference. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These things happen. I saw your change yesterday, and that is when I checked the source. You usually don't go around articles to check whether they stick to their sources. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s the edit: [7]. The 88.5 reference was unchanged, the value was changed to differ, and the gross was added. —Frungi (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So which figure do we think is more accurate? Should it be the $70Million choosing an appropriate reference of course - or do we stick with that reference and the $88.5million figure. IMDB has chosen $70million [8] Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is about as reliable as Wikipedia, isn’t it? Or does it get its financial information from non-user sources? —Frungi (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is but again it scrutinised more than Wikipedia (The data needs to be cited and then approved before being accepted)That still leaves mistakes but it's less prone to vandalism. Either way the $70 million is the more frequently quoted one [9][10][11]Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we have two contradictory sources, we should include both. That is what we usualy do on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if there was more than one $88.5million source to offset the multiple $70 million ones. Since there isn't I suggest we go for the $70 million figure and cite BoxofficeMojo Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a dollar/sterling conversion confusing the writers? I've seen articles where Box Office Mojo provided wrong figures and figures rounded up and down, enough times to strongly believe they do it on purpose. (One case in particular was another Vaughan film Kick-Ass, where he even goes so far as to unequivocally say the dollar value in an interview but Box Office Mojo had a different value). I would trust Variety or the Hollywood Reporter far higher as sources of precise and specific budget information, most other sources are just repeating whatever box office mojo says.
Having said that Hollywood accounting and all kinds of confusion between Production budget and marketing budget and other costs, these figures can get very confusing, in some cases it is unfortunately necessary to spell out in the article that different sources claimed different values. -- 93.107.148.169 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The $88.5 million budget figure has been sources to industry bible Variety (magazine) which is a damn sight more reliable than Box Office Mojo. Template:Infobox film says not to cherry-pick budget figures, so both figures should now be included. -- 109.76.153.134 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Variety saying Paramount paid half (I read this elsewhere too) and putting the budget at $75 million, although adding there was speculation the cost was higher. -- 109.79.176.69 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

The Cast section mentions how several of the characters died. Why is this relevant? I’m deleting this information, unless someone thinks it’s important enough to be included (but why in the cast list?). —Frungi (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inclined to edit it (right now), but the Cast section should focus on the actors, not the characters. Character deaths can be covered in the Plot section if they're significant, and if they're not significant, they don't need to be mentioned in any case. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long term the Cast list should be removed altogether with the casting section being expanded to cover everything that's in the cast list. Neil Gaiman was particularly vocal about casting decisions during pre-production so his blog may help fill that in though its hould be checked against the final cast (which is why it's currently referencing the casting of Billie Whitelaw where Melanie Hill eventually played the part) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot information does not belong in the cast list. At most there should be a very short text to introduce the character, not a biography. Sometimes the need to keep the plot section very short causes editors to put too much information in the Cast section. Some editors seem to think removing the Cast section entirely is a way to improve the article, I disagree (out of sight, out of mind, and it wont be improved) but I do agree it is better to add to the section and include information about what the actors thought about their characters and the casting process. -- 93.107.148.169 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Wall?

[edit]

Does anyone know where Wall is supposed to be located? It isn't mentioned in the film but it could be in the book or Neil Gaiman/someone else might have said in an interview. I just wonder because in the film there's a scene where Victoria mentions her fiancé is going 'all the way to Ipswich' to buy her an engagement ring and Tristan counters that when he talks about travelling he means going to London. London and Ipswich are about 80-90 miles apart and I think it would be helpful to get an idea of the approximate distance between Wall and Ipswich because without it it's hard to get a sense of the contrast between the two statements. Is it about the same and Tristan just thinks London sounds more impressive? Or is Ipswich about 20 miles away and to Victoria going the extra 60 miles to London is an unthinkable distance that would prove Tristan is a brave and exotic adventurer? 82.68.159.246 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note talk pages shouldn't be used for discussing questions about the subject but as it's something that could be added to the article if sourced I'll make a few comments. The location of Wall has never been given - in the book (in a section set in the present day) it is given as a "whole night's drive" away from London , so it would have to be the North of England somewhere, Gaiman hasn't said anything else about it beyond that in any sources; and why would he narrow it down, the work is supposed to be a modern fairytale and as such as vague as possible. The line in the the film is probably intended to be the latter of your two interpretations but it's a kind of throw-away line and probably doesn't refer to any real life geography. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struan Rodger/Bishop

[edit]

Should he be listed in the credits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.166.216 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stardust (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stardust (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group Project

[edit]

Hello, I am Grace and will be editing this page as part of a class project (university undergraduate level) in my group with Ivonne, Lucien, Megan and Simone. We are going to edit the summary, plot and potentially re-organize the structure. Gracemccaffrey (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you review Wikipedia:Education program/Students if you have not already done so. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial text/Introduction for page

[edit]

I noticed the opening paragraph of the page needed making easier to read, and the plot summary more concise. Here I have re-drafted it and will post if there are no objections!

Stardust (2007) is a film adaptation of the 1999 Neil Gaiman novel of the same name, Stardust. The romantic fantasy adventure film was directed by Matthew Vaughn and co-written by Vaughn and Jane Goldman. The film features an ensemble cast led by Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Sienna Miller, Jason Flemyng, Mark Strong, Rupert Everett, Ricky Gervais, Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer and Peter O’Toole, with narration by Ian McKellen.

The film follows Tristan, a young man from the fictional town of Wall. Wall is a town on the border of the magical fantasy kingdom of Stormhold. Tristan enters the magical world to collect a fallen star to give to Victoria, in return for her hand in marriage. He collects the star who to his surprise, is a woman named Yvaine. Witches and the Princes’ of Stormhold are hunting Yvaine as Tristan tries to get her back to Wall with him before Victoria's birthday, the deadline of her offer. Gracemccaffrey (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Section for page

[edit]

Hi all, I noticed that the cast section needed streamlining as I don't feel that extra descriptions of characters are relevant for a cast section. It should be simplified down to cast member and the name of the character they play, just to keep it concise as there are a lot of cast members and characters to account for. For example, 'Claire Danes as Yvaine, The Fallen Star' is relevant whereas 'Mark Williams as Billy, a goat converted into human form' seems unnecessary. Simplifying it down to 'Mark Williams as Billy' suffices as these extra points of information can be explained in the plot section.

Will go ahead and make these amendments if there are no major objections!

Thanks, Simoneollivierre (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the plot section.

[edit]

I'd like to tighten up some of the writing in the plot to make it more accurate to the film. Some of this will be sentence restructuring to make it clearer and more succinct and some will be adding in plot points that are missing. Points to be included in the plot: The magical chain that is used to bind both Una and Yvaine. How they come to be in the clouds including the candle, burned hand and the death of the unicorn. A sentence regarding Captain Shakespeare's character and him giving Tristan the lightning. How the death of Sal frees Una. Explaining how Yvaine shines when she is happy.

Should we say that Yvaine is the "personification" of a star because within this fantasy universe she literally is a star, they are one and the same being?

Thanks Lucien QMUL (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, I'm part of the undergraduate university group editing this page as part of a project. After looking through the references I noticed there are a few broken or dead links which I would like to remove if no other reliable source is available, I could not find a source which explained the original casting of Sarah Michelle Gellar as Yvaine so I removed this, if any sources can be found please re-add! Thanks. Meganmurphy182 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing dead links it may be possible to find archived copies using the Wayback Machine. -- 109.76.153.134 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structural Changes

[edit]

As part of our assignment, we aimed to make the page more accessible and user friendly. To start with, the overall structure needed some adjustments. Some headings and subheadings have been moved and renamed to make it easier to navigate and more terminologically precise. In this case, the 'Music' section has been moved to pertaining under the 'Production' heading. The category of 'Video Releases' has been renamed as 'Home Media' and 'Optioning' as 'Adaptation' since it is more suitable for a project that is based on a novel.

Ivonne.qmul (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stardust (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ROBOT FAIL. Dead page replaced with an archive URL that didn't contain the missing information. Was able to find the article elsewhere on the Empire website. -- 109.76.153.134 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DC is irrelevant

[edit]

This is a film. This is a film directed by Matthew Vaughn from his production company Marv. It is distributed by Paramount. The script was written by Jane Goldman. The script was based on a book written by Neil Gaiman that happened to be a published by the Vertigo imprint of DC comics. That's several degrees of separation between this film and DC Comics. This only merits a brief mention in the production section, which has already been done. There is absolutely no need to include a big ugly table full of links to tangentially related almost entirely unrelated DC comics films, just because it happens to be in Navbox format. It is daft to include these irrelevant tables, it is even more daft to include them only to immediately hide their contents.

Editors frequently add gratuitous navboxes, seemingly for no other reason than that they exist and with little thought about how relevant they. We don't add every possible genre, or every possible category. We can and should be more discerning about including only the most relevant Navboxes. (We don't include a table of everything Jane Goldman has ever written, nor should we.)

The WP:NAVBOX guidelines are vague and contradictory: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." That's clear as mud, and can easily be read whatever way you want to read it, "but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Also "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers" this means that any information is actually relevant should have already been mentioned in the article text (and in this case it is already briefly mentioned in the Production section). There is no point including an irrelevant hidden table that more than half of readers will never even see.

Editors who think it is important to include the DC Navbox[12][13] should properly explain why the think it should be included. The mere fact that it can be included is not a reason that it should be included. The navbox and its contents are of very low relevance and should not be included in this film article. -- 109.79.169.58 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CYCLE I removed the Navbox before and started a discussion but there was no response so I have removed it again.[14] The inclusion of hidden tables of irrelevant links is absurd, let's apply some common sense about relevance the same as we would if it was a See also section. -- 109.79.73.171 (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the nabvox in question explicitly links to this film, it seems reasonable to me that it should be included per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I'll ask for additional opinions at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. DonIago (talk)
DonIago started this discussion specifically Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Request_for_additional_opinions (by linking to it now I make it easier to find later should we ever want to revisit it.) -- 109.79.81.95 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A fundamental difficulty is that, when an editor introduced the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL aspect of the navbox guideline, what they wrote described unidirectionality. People disapproving of bidirectionality have not been able to get consensus to remove it and those approving of it have been unable to get consensus to get the text changed to agree with the headline. This has been unresolved since at least 2013: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 7#Bidirectional navboxes? Thincat (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Thincat, that's more eloquently put than I could have managed but yes, the guidelines for Navboxes say they MUST include the link and then employing circular logic people say the link means the Navbox should be included. That and a whole lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The principle of relevance has been abandoned when it comes to Navboxes. The principle of WP:DONTHIDE also seems to have been ignored, if all NAVBOXES were fully expanded by default the ludicrousness of including more than the few most relevant would be utterly exposed. The part of the guidelines that says there should be discussion about it is rarely observed but it still matters. -- 109.79.81.95 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The saving grace is they are down at the bottom where nobody much sees them (and, for mobile users, they are not shown anyway) and, these days, they are also mostly hidden. Thincat (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More images

[edit]

The article has a good amount of images already but in case there is room for more images later I wanted to note that the image of Jason Flemyng (Prince Primus) is from the LA premiere of this film, as you can see from other photos of the event, he is wearing the same green cravat, white shirt, and grey jacket.[15]

Not from the premiere but other images from 2007 such as File:DeNiroBerlinFeb07_(cropped).jpg File:Gaiman,_Neil_(2007).jpg or File:RickyGervaisBAFTA07.jpg might be in theory be useful. Then again an image of File:Charlie_Cox_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg from a decade later might still be a more relevant choice than any of those other images (Legacy section maybe?). -- 109.78.196.169 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvement

[edit]

I just wanted to add a brief note in case anyone else was interested in making further improvements to this article. I've watched the film with the DVD commentary but I don't recommend using it as a source, there were only a few things that I considered worth adding and I vastly prefer text based references anyway. I do thoroughly recommend checking out the book Stardust : The Visual Companion : Being an account of the making of a magical movie. which is an excellent resource full of details that could be used to significantly improve this article and I reckon with the help of that book an experienced editor could bring this article all the way to {{Featured article}} quality. (I've been prodding this article along and making sporadic edits for almost a decade, so I'll probably get around to it eventually if the world doesn't end, what with the plagues and the wars and all.)

I've been reading the book occasionally and taking a few notes, I've read maybe half of it. I hope to make more improvements to this article myself, but I would be happy to see anyone else have a go. -- 109.76.131.25 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stardust_(2007_film)&oldid=1205436677"