Jump to content

Talk:Wes Anderson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Incorrect Information

"Actor Owen Wilson co-wrote Wes Anderson's first three films and appeared in all of Anderson's films except Rushmore (he appeared in pictures)," <--- This is incorrect, Owen Wilson appears as the gym coach in Rushmore and has a few lines. I'm a new user and didn't know if that was worth correcting or not. Thought I would bring it to everyone's attention though . .

Actually... (Re: 'Incorrect Information')

That's not Owen Wilson as the gym coach in "Rushmore," that's actually Owen and Luke Wilson's brother, Andrew Wilson. He also appeared along with his brothers in Wes Anderon's first film "Bottle Rocket." Owen Wilson does not actually appear in the film "Rushmore" except in photos in the background of one scene.

Themes, religion...

"His films can also be seen in terms of the traditional Christian themes of grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation."

Uhhhh...how about traditional themes of life? Even in the Judeo-Christian world, I fail to see how this can be traced back. Lockeownzj00 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the specific themes are worth mentioning, but I've never read any analysis or overview of Anderson suggesting that these themes are specifically "Judeo-Christian"... That should be changed unless a source can be cited, so I'm changing it. —Tarnas 01:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A source an be cited. See http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol9No2/HancockCommunity.htm for the article published in The Journal of Religion and Film last year.

My edits, 12-7-05

Ok, I did a rather significant edit of the page. I think some of these are unworthy of mention, but some are debateable. Here is a summary: 1. Added a "trademarks" section because I feel we had enough for Anderson, and it seems an appropriate way to describe a director and his work, even in an encyclopedia, although I'll admit this is borderline. 2. Removed most lines that are common of pretty much every movie ever been made (like, "seeks to end in some sort of resolution to its narratives" or whatever that was and other statements) to reduce fan pov-ness. 3. Tried to make it more nPOV by making the "anti-Anderson" views from critics more prominent, such as his "pretension" or abscence of "traditional" narrative. 4. Reworked the first paragraph and added a sentence of my own to make it seem (at least to me) more balanced (although now it might seem too negative...he's a hard director to characterize in one sentence!). 5. Changed the "Judeo-Christian" section to give what is admitedly my own explanation as to why those themes often appear, but I'm not sure if this section should be there at all. 6. Minor changes in sentence structure and whatnot.

I know this is fairly, major, but today I Be Bold and it didn't seem like the article was a behive of activity. I know some of the changes might be debatable, but now I believe it's muc less fan-POV. Feel free to revert to the old, but please explain why becuase I believe most of the changes I've made, if not all, are for the better. 206.221.224.35 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've reworked some of your changes. I don't think his films "fail to conform to most traditional Hollywood paradigms" (blockbuster paradigms, but not Hollywood paradigms generally), and i don't think this is the reason leading "to much polarization from moviegoers concerning his work" (the "Acclaim and criticism" section below pinpoints his precious or pretentious stylings, not his lacking genre conventions, as the reason why some critics/moviegoers dislike his films).
    .....The things like "barriers are gradually overcome as individuals recognize the flaws and true desires in themselves and others" and "Typically, an Anderson film ends with several different narrative threads being resolved, relationships being restored, and things both trivial and significant being brought back to their rightful places." are not common to most films: barriers are commonly overcome, but not commonly by recognizing personal flaws, and in many movies things are not restored to their rightful places, closure instead often comes in the form of safety or returning home (Jurassic Park, E.T.), or is incomplete or thwarted (Monty Python, Annie Hall, 2001). Anderson's take on closure is more like that of Pulp Fiction or Office Space — you come out bruised, but feeling good.
    .....I reworded the "pageant-like feel" area: the pageant-like feel isn't solely the result of stationary cameras, as your rewording indicated, but I think you're right to tone down the gushing set/setting descriptions. I think maybe the first two paragraphs in the "Films" section need to be switched so the whole thing reads more naturally (moving from the basis of his films to specific story devices), but I'm still thinking of exactly how to do this. —Tarnas 06:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Personnel Section

It seems a bit repetitive to mention Eric Anderson's various roles in Wes's films three times, however I was unsure how to condense down. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? Thanks -- kj


Would it be possible for someone to create a chart similar to the one on Quentin Tarantino's page about reoccuring actors? Just a thought, I think that works well. Quentin_Tarantino#Casting

Still a bit fan-nish

Good article here! I'm concerned that it reads extremely pro-Anderson at the moment, though; lots of praise of what are commonly seen as his good points and no mention of what some see as his failings (for example, I think the special effects of Life Aquatic were widely regarded as disastrous, though I don't have the critics at my fingertips to back me up).

The special effects were supposed to look fake. That's made very clear in the DVD special features and commentary. The people who criticised that aspect of the film missed the point of what role the effects had in the film. --Dogbreathcanada 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Anderson fan too, but I know there's criticism out there. Can this be added in also? Phrases like "the richness of Anderson's pictures" is definitely pushing POV unless it can be shown to be a real critical consensus (and sourced as such in the article).

I've also pulled the "You might also enjoy the pictures of such-and-so" as non-encyclopedic; unless a signicant thematic/technical etc. link is established between these filmmakers, I don't see how it fits.

Glad to see we've got all this on Wes, though! --Dvyost 05:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The article does read pro-Anderson, though I don't mind since I am pro-Anderson. :) I haven't read any substantial criticisms of his work, only that some people just aren't engaged by it and don't understand it—being confused as to whether they're missing something ("Is this black comedy? Is he being sarcastic?"...). As for Life Aquatic, I guess fans (like me) would praise Anderson's visuals: he decided on claymation, which is wonderfully textural and he integrated it very seamlessly into the rest of the film, and his use of exposed sets was very controlled, not at all amateurish but instead pushing at the limits between theatre and film—which he's been pushing at his whole career. I found this mildly negative take on the film at the AllMovie Guide:
While Wes Anderson's particular and unique visual style is abundant throughout The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, his skills as a screenwriter have abandoned him. The filmmaker Noah Baumbach collaborated with Anderson on the screenplay, marking the first time Anderson has written with anyone other than Owen Wilson. The biggest difference between this film and his others is that Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums were filled with humor derived from characters who were usually laced with melancholy. This focus on fully-rounded characters allowed the emotional highs and lows to connect with the audience. Life Aquatic offers up a protagonist whose goals are never clearly defined. Aside from a section of the film where Zissou organizes a rescue of his crew, the script never gives the character a strong enough objective. That leaves Bill Murray to fill in the gaps. His conception of the character seems to be far more interesting than the one that has been written. The director gives Murray enough room to do what he wants to with the character. (Not even The Razor's Edge allowed Murray this much empty visual and emotional space to fill up with melancholy, cynicism, and brooding.) The Life Aquatic screenplay never allows the characters to be anything more than two-dimensional figures (even when the actors are giving it their all) so the melancholy feels unearned and the quirkiness feels shoehorned into the proceedings. At best, The Life Aquatic shows that Anderson is a gifted enough image maker to keep most viewers looking at his film even if they have no emotional investment in the characters. -- Perry Seibert
I don't really see these as substantive criticisms: the critic is comparing the action to the screenplay, but who knows if he's seen the screenplay himself and why it matter anyway if the action is intriguing, and since I was emotionally invested in the characters, and since the film involved people who purposely had little direction in their lives, I really can't empathize with this reviewer's critique. Another review, from the New York Times, is positive and surprised to have enjoyed the film, doting on how the reviewer felt Anderson's style became annoying in Tenenbaums but is easy enough to buy into and very rewarding in Life Aquatic. Here's an excerpt:
There is, to be sure, a certain willful, show-off capriciousness in this approach to filmmaking, but there is also a great deal of generosity. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Baumbach have built a magpie's nest of borrowed and reconditioned cultural flotsam -- from Jacques Cousteau to Tintin and beyond -- but the purpose of their pastiche is less to show how cool they are than to revel in, and share, a childish delight in collecting and displaying strange and enchanting odds and ends. If you allow yourself to surrender to The Life Aquatic, you may find that its slow, meandering pace and willful digressions are inseparable from its pleasures.

Not that it's all fun and games. The bright colors and crazy gizmos are washed over with a strange, free-floating pathos that occasionally attaches itself to the characters, but that seems in the end to be more an aspect of the film's ambience than of its dramatic situations. Zissou's world-weary melancholy, the utter seriousness with which he goes about being absurd, contains an element of inconsolable nostalgia. He is a child's fantasy of adulthood brought to life, and at the same time an embodiment of the longing for a return to childhood that colors so much of grown-up life.
I think the common theme of reviews of Anderson are that he has a style which you either buy into and love or don't and find annoying and full of itself, a situation which I think the wikipedia article here describes, though maybe it should make this quandry even more clear. --Tarnas 06:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"I think the common theme of reviews of Anderson are that he has a style which you either buy into and love or don't and find annoying and full of itself, a situation which I think the wikipedia article here describes"

I won't buy into that crock knowing that it's wrong. I have many friends who are indifferent about Wes Andersons films. I've read many reviews saying that they don't know what to think about what they just viewed. I do, however, believe that the way it is phrased on the wiki page is very well put, but here it is very opinionated. My view is changed of the comment now.

Career section?

This article still seems very uneven. There's nothing really about his personal/professional history, except for the little blurb at the top about his attendance at U of Texas. It seems like there's more inane trivia about his films and recurring themes than the actual circumstances of their production, which I think would be more interesting to the casual reader. Like the detail about his moving to Revolution Studios... shouldn't that be a part of the main body of text about his career, rather than as a subpoint about how his films are released onto DVD? Mseyers 06:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Fact tags

I went through and removed several redundant fact tags sprinkled throughout the article. Since there is already an "unreferenced" template at the top of the page, it seems pointless to have specific fact tags littered throughout the article. Some of the recently-placed tags looked like plain vandalism. The "unreferenced" template on the Themes section is probably redundant as well, but I left it in because of its apparent connection with the OR tag right below it. Overall, the article needs a thorough fact-checking because there is a great deal of opinion and interpretation posing as facts. ---Charles 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Negative Criticism

"That leaves Bill Murray to fill in the gaps. His conception of the character seems to be far more interesting than the one that has been written. The director gives Murray enough room to do what he wants to with the character. (Not even The Razor's Edge allowed Murray this much empty visual and emotional space to fill up with melancholy, cynicism, and brooding.)"

This is probably because the character Steve Zissou was written for, and loosely based on, Bill Murray. Something that a person who looks for more than face value of a film would know. Is it so bad to rely on an actors TALENT if it is what is expected?

I don't think that critics should be considered credible. 1. They, obviously, haven't looked deeply into Wes Anderson, let alone the films they are critiquing. 2. I see a major lack of knowledge of documentaries and commentaries (as well as quotes from the authors and producers) of the films in their comments, ideas and thoughts which are most commonly classified (and confused) as "reviews." Which, yet again, is based by face value without a deeper understanding of the film. 3. Who cares what a two bit hack from upper New York feels about Wes Anderson films? Go to rottentomato.com if you want to read these critiques (in my opinion).

All in all, There are websites already dedicated to critics and I doubt that anyone who is REALLY interested in seeing them will not go to it. I feel that they are extremely bias and shouldn't be included in the wikipedia page for Wes Anderson. I would love to see a wikipedia page without some sort of propaganda or bias but, alas, I feel that this comment will go unnoticed or will be ignored/contested.

I can't believe no one has challenged this. This is not an even remotely acceptable reason for removing content. The author practically says "I'm removing all the criticism because the critics are idiots". Over the next few days I'm going to restore all the missing content I can find. (72.128.93.207 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

AT&T ads

Hi, Just adding some current info about the AT&T campaign and the Lebanon controversy. Sources are in process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.202.65 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual Thematic elements

I see there's some preexisting stuff on Anderson's influences, but can anyone expand on the recurring visual elements of his works? Stuff like color palette, 70-80s influences, and Italian film influences [especially Anderson's use of the Futura font in every one of his works, which he has stated is done to emulate old Italian movie posters...] ---NoirCat 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Real picture

What's the deal with the drawing? I would recommend a real picture.

I second. The caricature seems fan-ish. 206.221.224.35 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason for the drawing is that it looks like him (it illustrates well), and it's public domain (it doesn't violate any image rules). If you can find a decent, real-life photograph of him that is public domain, by all means replace the illustration. I still can't understand why people in the English wikipedia are so offended by drawn portraits, though. These portraits have been pretty much welcomed by several of the other wikipedias. —Tarnas 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia, not an art page. I suggest using the picture that imdb uses. [1] I'm not against the drawing. It just seems very self promoting of an artist. Possibly create another page for that artist and include that drawing?
I actually came on here to comment on this same thing. The drawing is a good drawing, but I think a photograph would better serve the purposes of this site.
I move to remove the drawing. It is inappropriate to have uncommissioned fan art as part of an encyclopedia entry.--Macca7174 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
i just came to this page, but whoa, that drawing totally doesn't need to be there. no picture is better than a fan drawing. i'm taking it down. Sparsefarce 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I liked it quite a bit. Maybe this should have been more of a vote / discussion than a unilateral action. It's not like there are no established organizations that use portraits; consider the Wall Street Journal. -DT
The WSJ's portraits are published with the permission of the subject of the portrait. Putting drawings or modified photographs of subjects on wikipedia is a really bad idea unless that portrait/modification has been approved by the subject of the portrait; otherwise there is room for abuse, such as unflattering portraits (distorting ear/nose sizes, etc) in allowing such things. Piperdown 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it seems a bit rude to go ahead with an action that is currently being debated on the discussion page without consulting anyone first. I say we re-instate the drawing until a suitable picture can be found. It wasn't ideal, but it was definitely better than nothing. Waqcku 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
in the case of BLP articles, nothing is better than something that can get WP sued. Piperdown 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sued for what? Having a drawn-in picture that some people find innapropriate? That image was released to Wikipedia by its author, legal issues are not involved here at all. It's a matter of aesthetics, and one persons complete lack of respect for the opinions of his peers. Waqcku 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my earlier edit, I made a generic point that it's just a bad idea to allow people to put their own drawings up on WP for representative pictures of BLP subjects. Drawings published in reliable sources already, with permission to put here, fine. But allowing people to post their own drawings of BLP's here is just not a good policy on several levels. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a place for opportunistic artists who are otherwise unpublished to make a name for their artistic renderings of BLP subjects. If the New York Times or something similar published that drawing of Wes, then put it in here assuming that source releases it. It's bad enough to allow personal photographs as they can be photoshopped and put here without professional editorial oversight, but imho allowing drawings/paintings that are otherwise not in the public domain or from a reliable source, notable artist, etc, is a bad precedent, regardless of how fantastic any portrait of Wes put here might be. Generic statements and opinions on the big picture, nothing personal or specific against the person who did the drawing. Piperdown 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would some one please just put a picture of him up? Who cares about a drawing? Just put one up. I found it very strange, coming here, seeing that there was not a picture of him up. There are plenty of them out there. Just choose one, for God's sake, and put it up. Is that really that hard? Quit whining, and just do it. Jiminezwaldorf 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

References?

The article has citations but no references section. Did it get deleted somehow? Is anyone familiar with the sources cited? Csonnich 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the edit page of the article, and the text for the references, as well as some other material, is there, but it's not showing up. Does anyone know why this would happen or how to fix it? Csonnich 03:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Added New Information

I have added a picture which has been released to the media by Fox Searchlight. I have changed the word 'Personnel' to 'Collaborator's' as this is Anderson's preferred term. I have also added a small section on fashion as it has become an interesting topic of which he is now being asked multiple questions. -- Duncanbruce 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We can only use free images to illustrate living people, per WP:FU. Your image appears to have been deleted already. Also, if you can source that fashion information, that would be great. See, WP:CITE. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Website

Not to be picky, but it says that all the mothers die of cancer - in the Royal Tenenbaums, Chas's wife dies in a plane crash, not of cancer. User:LaxPlayer21


Whatever happened to wesanderson.org? Is he never going to use the Internet to promote himself and his work? What gives? Abisai

Wesanderson.org was a fan site, not an official site. [anonymous] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.39.118 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Drummer for Blind Illusion?

I removed this information from the biography section. Here's the only website I could find which says Wes Anderson was the drummer for Blind Illusion: http://www.casinoroyalemusic.com/cr-bio.html Obviously, as you can see from the picture, this is a different person who happens to have the same name.Discostu24000 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthday Inconsistencies

At the top and bottom of the page, it says Anderson was born in 1969. However, the box on the right says 1975. Which is correct? 68.158.8.244 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Article quality

This article needs a lot of work. I think I'm going to try and fix it up. Just letting you all know :-) --Mad Pierrot (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started to work on the article on a sandbox, and if anyone would like to help send me a message or edit my talk page. Thanks --Mad Pierrot (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Villains

"A main characteristic of all his films is the complete absence of villains. His characters might be misguided and may cause pain to others but always without malice."

What about the pirates in "Life Aquatic"?

Well. . .

They were minor characters; they didnt even have any lines in english. Maybe the line could be abridged to say 'main characters', or something like that, but the Pirates didn't have any depth and werent crucial to the plot. 

                  -Foster


The pirates as a group were an obstacle, not a direct villain. They were not responsible for Zissous's (Bill Murray's) fall from his former prestige, and his confrontation of them did not resolve his inner conflicts. --65.28.73.99 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Without a reference, this is original research. 32.97.110.64 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hotel Chevalier peer review

Editors and watchers of this article might be interested to comment in the peer review of the article on Hotel Chevalier, Anderson's acclaimed short film. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  15:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the following should be removed from the article:

His work has become so much a part of the cultural lexicon, that Campus Circle newspaper (part of The Onion network) even ran a feature on the director called "Wes Anderson-ize Your Life." The article gives college students fun tips for incorporating style details from Anderson's films and cast of characters into their personal lives. [1]

It should be deleted because it's just a reference to an article about Anderson, from a non-notable publication (according to the page-counter, less than 1k people have even read the feature in question). That "part of The Onion network" bit seems to be attempting to legitimize the link's inclusion in the article, but c'mon; Anderson had a cover-story in New York Magazine and that's not included here, but this student newspaper article gets its own paragraph? It's not even much of an article, it's pretty much "I like Wes Anderson," no research, no sources, no quotes from Anderson. If I write an article on why I like Anderson, does that get included in his wikipedia article? That's not how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.12.235 (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wealth and Class

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. In all of his movies, from Bottle Rocket to Darjeeling, at least one of the central characters are extremely wealthy. If they weren't as rich then the story wouldn't be able to unfold the way it does-sign a bill at a country club for dinner for ten people without reading it, build an aquarium, something from the Tannenbaums, fund an oceanic reseach vessel, stay at the Hotel Chevalier for an indeterminate amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Writers have mentioned, several times, that one of Anderson's pet themes is class. Max Fisher in Rushmore is a poor kid who attends a posh boarding school, he is inspired by Bill Murray's character (a wealthy businessman with working-class roots), who gives a speech about "taking aim at the rich kids." That's not subtext, it's right there on the surface. In Bottle Rocket, Mr. Henry refers to Bob as "the rich kid," they decide to rob his house instead of pulling of a heist. Anderson seems to be saying something about pedigree in The Royal Tenenbaums, the three children are geniuses, but they've also been privileged with a mother who nurtures their gifts. Meanwhile, Owen Wilson's character, Eli, is the poor kid from across the street who strives to be like the Tenenbaum family.
But your point that "If they weren't as rich then the story wouldn't be able to unfold the way it does" doesn't really have much substance. In response, I'd say, "so what?" I think Anderson is making a point about how wealth can cloister people and stunt emotional development. You referenced Hotel Chevalier, I think the point that Jack Whitman can afford to stay at the hotel only serves to isolate him, a kind of "running away from your problems" option that wealthy people have. In Fantastic Mr. Fox, Foxy wants to move to the tree because staying in the ground makes him "feel poor." So, yes, Anderson has often dealt with money and class as themes in his films, and yes, it could easily be noted here. But regardless, I don't understand why people seem to have such a problem with Anderson writing characters from moneyed backgrounds (or maybe that attitude is a reflection of some audience members discomfort with or anger at actual wealthy people.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.12.235 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Madhatterhilo, 18 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} His soundtracks feature early folk and rock music, in particular classic British rock. Anderson's films combine dry humor with poignant portrayals of flawed characters who have a hard time excepting the realities of their life– often a mix of the wealthy and the working class.

Madhatterhilo (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sourcing for this statement? Otherwise it's original research and inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 Not done Please provide a source and request the edit again. CTJF83 chat 16:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

New edit request, not from Madhatterhilo: The commercial takes inspiration from Jacques Tatis' Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot. The possessive form of "Jacques Tati" would be "Jacques Tati's", not "Jacques Tatis'". 12.233.146.130 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Done. Snori (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Peanuts references.

It would be wise to replace it. In the commentaries during the meeting, between margot tennenbaum and royal, the peanuts christmas song is playing and wes anderson himself says that it is a running trait in his movies.

I have a question. In the article, it says: "Anderson's stylized films also borrow youthful aesthetic qualities from comics such as Charles Schulz's Peanuts and Hergé's The Adventures of Tintin graphic novels." To whoever wrote this, or whoever else who may be qualified to answer: can you be specific and tell me what qualities are borrowed? It says "Youthful aesthetic qualities", which is good for the article, but personally I am wondering what, specifically, you think they are. Depth conveyed through simplicity? ... Something like that? I am not writing as a critic, but as someone who is earnestly looking for more specific explanation. It is a curious idea for me. Thank you!

I tried to do some clean up of this article yesterday, but left the elephant in the room on this alone: almost the entire piece reads like a college term paper written by a fan, with his own flourished opinions mingled in with reviews and critiques that are uncited. This entry has a long way to go to become encyclopedic. It needs to be pruned down to a factual biography of Wes Anderson. Editorializing on this style and themes needs detailed citing to avoid a unsourced fanboy POV to dominate it. And these comments come from a Wes fanboy. Piperdown 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Compression of space

The "compression of space" description is utter nonsense. I won't remove it, but I am almost certain compression of space describes the compression that arises from using telephoto lenses; it causes the foreground and background to seem closer than they really are. I've yet to find any reference to "compression of space" referring to the use of one lens exclusively in filmmaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.41.164 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard Wes Anderson say "Compression of space" instead of Telephoto Lens. The word Telephoto sticks out so well that you just can't forget it. I recall him (W.A.) mentioning the lenses multiple times in the Life aquatic documentaries. -fkylw 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Polanski Petition

My original addition (in the 'controversy' section) was as follows:

"Anderson has also signed a petition demanding the immediate release of self confessed child rapist and fugitive Roman Polanski following Polanski's much publicized September 2009 arrest in Switzerland." (citations to the petition, as well as CNN and LA Times coverage are omitted here)

This was deleted as 'unverifiable'

First a few (readily verifiable) facts:

1) Wes Anderson signed a entertainment industry petition demanding Roman Polanski's immediate release

2) Roman Polanski plead guilty in California to having sex with a minor, if you'd like to consult wikipedia regarding the definition of rape you'll find that this in fact constitutes rape (based solely on age of consent). If you'd like to consult wikipeida regarding the definition of a minor then you'll discover that he thereby he plead guilt to the rape of a child. He is, by consequence, literally and precisely a self confessed child rapist, exactly as described. If that strikes you as too technical you can consult testimony concerning that case that has recently been made public on The Smoking Gun, in which the 13 year old victim states that she was drugged, and told Mr. Polanski 'no' on numerous occasions before he orally, vaginally, and anally raped her. Let's move along...

3) The petition has attracted wide attention, and the position it advocates has attracted almost unanimous criticism in the United States (and by some accounts even amongst average Europeans).

There were links provided to the petition showing that it was signed by Wes Anderson, together with a text of the petition (documenting that it demanded the immediate release of Roman Polanski), together with an editorial from a major outlets critizing that petition. That was offhand, as there are LOTS of pundits all over the place criticizing that petition. But the information is deleted as unverifiable? Garbage.

How about this, what particular aspect of my addition is even possibly subject to dispute?

I'm going to wait a bit and then sign back and put the material back on with carefully listed links. Or better still, I'll trust that someone else will reinstate the material in the meantime, certainly with whatever clean up in formatting or diction as might improve it. If this is something other than a Wes Anderson fanboy page, and Wikipedia even presumes to be taken seriously as a source of reasonably objective information there is absolutely no reason that this shouldn't occur. The matter is full documented by sources that are widely available, and if you don't think this is a source of major controversy you haven't watched five minutes of news or used the internet in the last week. We can go through the exercise of documenting the controversy too if that helps you feel better, although I'd suggest that whoever is manipulating the record here on Mr. Anderson's behalf should probably cut their losses before insisting on endless citations of regular people expressing their utter disgust for Mr. Polanski and his defenders.

Would someone rather this not be publicized right before a children's movie 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' from Mr. Anderson comes out? If you want to use manipulation to squelch what is now a matter of undeniable fact and public record you're simply going to prompt wider attention be paid to the matter. The man has committed himself to public support, perhaps he should not follow Mr. Polanski's example and take whatever credit or consequence accrues to his decisions in this instance.

Incidentally, I've been a long time fan of Wes Anderson, own all his films, and have recommended his movies to innumerable people over the years. The only reason I even opted to get involved in this is because of how utterly dissapointed, and even betrayed I felt seeing him demanding a child rapist be excused from justice by virtue (the wrong word, certainly) of his fame and wealth. That's just context as my personal feelings have no bearing here whatsoever - neither should those of whoever would rather obscure his very public involvement in this matter. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the motivation is something other than mercenary, and the editor is someone other than a PR firm lackey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.191.1 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below information was tagged for needing sources for over a year. Feel free to incorporate into the article with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

critical acclaim section

The section about which of his films has received critical acclaim is v. subjective and not inkeeping w/ wikistyle. I propose removing Xyphoid (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

article needs some work

I'm rather surprised that this article does not mention him being the grandson of Edgar Rice Burroughs. In fact, this article doesn't do a very good job at actually communicating anything about Wes Anderson beyond filmography and award nominations. As a Wikipedia user, this was very disappointing. Sadly I do not have the time or resources to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles or contribute to this in a meaningful way. 69.122.4.110 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for your information, even just listing them here would be a start. Better would be being bold and adding the information yourself, but I understand your concerns about editing. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wes_Anderson/Archive_1&oldid=1218570377"