Talk:The Beautician and the Beast/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 01:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment may take a day or two to set up. In the meantime, could you mention what drew you to take up this film which is not generally considered to be a top ten film for many critics. Does the article cover the main actors sufficiently in its current form, Fran moving further into comedy and Dalton redefining his career after his Bond years. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking this up for a review. I was inspired to work on a film article to potentially bring up to the FA level. I did not want to work on anything too heavy, and I actually enjoy this movie for what it is (it is a silly/camp rom-com). It may not be the best film, but it puts me in a good mood. I believe that I have covered everything sufficiently, but if you think more should be added, I can definitely try my best to look for the sources and add it into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initiate review of all sections

0 Lead section

Might read better as "European dictator of a fictitious East European nation...". Also, "...was a vehicle to launch her film career and was her first starring role in film." In the final paragraph of the lede, something like "...did poorly by losing money at the box office grossing roughly...". JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the phrasing for "European dictator of a fictitious East European nation..." as it seems rather repetitive for my taste in the lead. I think that "an Eastern European dictator" works better as it is more concise. I am also not certain about "was a vehicle to launch her film career" as Drescher already had a film career at this point; this was just her first time in a lead role. I do not think that "...did poorly by losing money at the box office grossing roughly..." as it is already obvious from the prose that film lost money/did not meet its budget. I feel like it might be too repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fake country. This should be expressed in the lede in some form. Second point could be phrased as "was a vehicle to determine her viability as a leading actress in Hollywood." This is a big deal in Hollywood in determining whether an actor/actress can pull the weight of a film in leading roles. This film was a strike against her. Third, hits and flops is basic Hollywood vocabulary. "No hit, no sequel." There was no sequel here because of very poor performance. Often films that even break even or make a "mere" 10 percent profit are still considered as poor performers. Could you tweak the language to reflect this since 'did not meet its budget' sounds like a bit of a gloss. Try to state the facts plainly, the film did poorly at the Box Office. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the lead to include information that it is a fictional country. I have added this part (part of her attempt to transition from television to film) to the lead as there is a reference in the article, where Drescher talks about this particular movie as her attempt to transition her television success into a film career. I have revised the part about its commercial performance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 Plot

"...burns down the school" is a little overstated and might read better as "...sets the classroom ablaze...". Also, "...Ira is surprised to discover Joy's identity...", might read better. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 Cast

No cast comments or descriptions, even for the lead actors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information about the character is already present in the "Plot" section so there is no need to put it again here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 Analysis

Analysis/Themes/Interpretation section normally would be expected to come after the Critical response section below. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally seen it more often in this placement (see Resident Evil: Apocalypse and The Shawshank Redemption). Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it both ways also. Doesn't it make sense to keep them chronological though. That is, the newspaper Reception comes out before the journal articles and books come out with Analysis and Interpretation. Why do you reverse this chronology here in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the structure of the recent featured articles on films. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Production

Graff photo with unidentified other person is related or unrelated to the film? Fran again is quoted as using this film as a vehicle for a career launch here in films... did she succeed or was this a poor start, etc? Budget was not recovered should be mentioned at the end of this section as "unrecovered". JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the image with one of Dalton. Drescher already had a film career at this point; this was just her first starring role. I would also think that the box office performance information should be kept in the "Release" section. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rephase my latter point. Were there any budget over-runs during production, or in negotiations for actor's contracts. Was everything on budget or under budget during production for this film which failed at the Box Office. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any sources that talked about the specifics of this film's production and its budget so unfortunately, I could not add anything about that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 Soundtrack

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 Release

Mention that added music was in addition to Eidelman's score. What were the earnings for the DVD sales and for the Soundtrack sales, is this info available? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean about this part (Mention that added music was in addition to Eidelman's score.). Could you please clarify? The only thing that I could find out about the sales for the soundtrack is in this sentence (Due to the film's poor commercial performance, the album was pulled from record stores, and it went out of print in 2000.) from the "Soundtrack" section. I also could not find anything on DVD sales. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your comment in the Release section: "Composer John Beal created the music for the trailer." If you are stating that it was not used in the film at all, then you could add that in the text to clarify that it was in the trailer and the trailer only. That is, that Beal did no composition for the film itself. Regarding the sales information for the DVD, this type of data is usually meticulously kept in the industry; they know the pecking order of sales from number 1 to the lowest performer for each week its on sale. You are saying there is no information at all for DVD sales which you could find? Was there anything interesting in Fran's video commentary which you mention. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how the statement "Composer John Beal created the music for the trailer" could be misread as Beal composing music for more than just the trailer? I do not believe there is much information on the DVD sales for this particular film. The DVD was released five years after the original film's release so it is not too surprising that little attention was given to it. Drescher does not say anything particularly worthwhile for inclusion during the commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 Critical reception

"...a waste of space..." is a little ambiguous as a critical quote. What did he mean, "a waste of time" is the usual phrase for a screen flop. "Poor chemistry" between the two might be mentioned in the lede also to explain the poor performance and box office losses of the film. Caption for Fran image can be made more critical, since the film did poorly and actually lost money at the gate. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the MTV News sentence. I do not think you could use the "poor chemistry" part to explain why this movie lost money. Only one critic in this section says that they had bad chemistry so putting in the lead would give undue weight. I have revised the image caption to include more of the negative criticism toward Drescher, but this section is about the critical reception of the film so a part about its box office would not be appropriate here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the main reason for the poor performance was not 'bad chemistry' then what was does Rotten Tomatoes indicate was the main reason that the film did not connect with audiences. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes does not have a site consensus for this film. Since I could not find a source that clearly connects the film's financial failure to a specific critical trend or review, I do think that it would be wise to make that attribution as it would fall under the umbrella of original research. I have already included a sentence on the film's general poor critical reception in the lead, so the reader may form their opinion from there. Viewers probably just did not care about this film at the time of its release and chose to avoid. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8 References

Your 'Book sources' section might be renamed as Bibliography and moved up before the Refereneces for citations in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told in the past to not use the Bibliography as a section title. I have also used the format in several GANs and FACs without any issues. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look better in my edit preview box when the list of book titles comes before the citations list. My experience is that most people do not look for information after the citations list. It seems to become unused data which few if anyone look at when placed at the very bottom. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your preference, but I have again used this GANs and FACs without any issues. I do not see a need to change it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be enough to get things started. Ping me when ready or if any clarifications are needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: Thank you for the comments so far! I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping my account when ready to continue. You did say that this film was a personal favorite for you as a film, and my comments about making a plain statement about lack of success at the Box Office and with critics should not be misread. Its simply stating the facts, even if this is a "feel-good" film for you. Its just that consensus views in the film industry do not always align with personal views among individuals. In this case, this film simply did not do well at the gate and this should be stated more plainly in the article in the instances I have mentioned above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: I may enjoy the film, but I am not delusional about its box office. It was a failure, but I felt that it was just better to have the numbers speak for themselves. I have made the corrections where I feel it is appropriate, and I have left for response on the other matters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

This film is neither an art house film nor a Hollywood success though its lead actors are well liked and viewers are occasionally drawn to it. The current article is well written by an experienced Wikipedia editor, and the editing in response to this assessment has been prompt and apt in addressing the main issues. The article is well illustrated and the captions are consistently useful. The tone of the article is neutral and contains no identifiable original research. The citations are all formatted and linked when possible for ease of use for readers. The one exception is a possible connection problem or slow primary link to the Rotten Tomatoes link in the article, though the archive back-up link works well. The film itself was not a Hollywood success story, though the Wikipedia article here about it is now peer review quality and is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]