Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:25, 8 April 2007

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Casino Royale 2006

I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination:

• Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition.
• Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy.
• Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond".
• Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003.
• One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White.

What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have begun copy editing -don't be alarmed by the number of edits -they are not major changes but polishing phrasing and making sentences flow. I have nearly finished the casting section and I have to admit it reads pretty well ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done exactly as you said anyway for the script It seemed the appropriate place to mention it briefly ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes I usually prefer I am so occupied with trying to reword it that I forgot about previewing it! Will do ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That fine -remember I haven't read it all through yet so I would have picked up on that afterwards. It is just general polish and increasing concisenesss e.g stage in the process of being taken down replace with dismantled etc and ridding of some short stubby sentences which affect the flow of the article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuntaely there are some notable faults with the release section. The paragraph North America in particular -3/4 of the section focuses on the UK and Russia and I do feel the film Happy feet it mentioned too many times even if it is appropriate to compare earnings to some degree. The reaction section needs rewriting into more concise sentences -there are far too many stubby sentences which are not professionally written. Also the the awards will need rewriting properly to intergrate the list in to the paragraphing coherently and logically. I have come as far as the top of reaction now I'll finish the rest later. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made considerable restructing to the release section often it repeated itself twice and was written in disorder. I have also restructured it clearly as North American, UK and Ireland and Worldwide. Reception will be next to copy edit ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Literature on film

I think I'm going to delay the GA/FA nominations for Fight Club until I finish my spring semester. During my research, I found a couple of books, "Rebels on the Backlot" and "What Just Happened?", that have some extra information about how production came to be. I've always wanted to improve the main Production section further, as the third paragraph about makeup and stuff seems rather trivial. I looked at some of the pages of these books via Google Books, and I found some more information about how the project took off. Apparently, Jim Uhls was writing the script (without the voiceover) with producer Ross Bell before Fincher came on board. There's also more information about the conflict between Mechanic and Murdoch starting before the film even came out. Anyway, the local library (university and town both) don't have either of these books, but my hometown does. So I figure in May, when I go home, I'll get these books and add the new, more relevant information. In the meantime, I'll continue re-shaping the awards, reception, and what-have-you. I've been trying to look up the overall DVD reception for Fight Club, but Billboard.biz requires subscription, bah. I've tried to use Access World News to find the information, but Billboard only reports weekly information. Fight Club was #1 in DVD sales the first week, but that's not very relevant, IMO. Most DVDs that come out of the gate tend to do reasonably well. I'm trying to find the long-term trend, basically. Anyway, I should stop researching this film -- I got three more exams to go, and Misplaced Pages is all too alluring. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Books at all? You can search for the series (and add specific keywords so you don't get literature about the superstition in general). Also, you could Google for literature pertaining to the series, then try to look it up on Google Books. That's sort of what I did; you'll be able to preview some pages to see if the material is worth picking up from the local library. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Crystal Lake Memories something you're aware of? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC

I've nominated the article here; Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film). I look forward to your feedback. Alientraveller 20:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone particular improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 09:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

300

Hello, I'm curious where the basis for blocking Arcayne is? I didn't see a single warning on his talk page about coming close to a violation of the 3RR, and when I checked 300 I saw maybe 3 edits altogether on the main page with his name on it. Could you please show me where you are basing your decision?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the evidence here. As for the warnings: he has been blocked (and then later unblocked) for violating the three-revert rule on the article. I warned him about the three-revert rule a couple days ago, but he removed the warning from his talk page, calling me a "stalking horse". -- tariqabjotu 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

James Blond

I hate the website too but the massive protest of Craig and film must be at least referred to in the intro it can't be ignored however much I think those protesters are pathetic. We cite all the positive sources saying how successful the film etc - sources which also show negative views in this case an extensice campaign are not inappropraite I hope it tries to give a balanced view of the film. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have used the CNN profesional source for the James Blond part but I would also prefer not to elaborate too much on that dreadful craignotbond site. Can you bleeive that site still exists!! Who do they think is having the last laugh when the producers are about to make over $600 million!!!! If I don't site the website the boucott should still definately be nmentioned ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "he was cited as" someelse did that. I didn't ven add it to the casting section somenone elese did ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool you've probably notcied the new summary of the title sequence which I thought would be useful the gun barrel image now is appropriate to go with it. I have also sorted out and filled in some of the redundant referencing changing several to professional sources such as The Guardian etc. Finally I would love to take a screenshot of the great Pinewood rig and tank using during filming from the DVD to show the structure and the baloons in the base - as the largest ever Bond rig and one of the largest ever an image of it particaulrly as it is discussed well in the article would be very helpful and look great I think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK but will you please let me complete things first befire making comments - I have added several more sentences to the credit so the image is very apporpariate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

I know you to be a fairly neutral editor who hasn't been involved at the RFC for usernames. Someone has asked for a neutral look at Byron Coley, contesting my claim that the part near the end about "an anomaly" is POV and weasel worded. Do you think you could drop by and give your opinion on the talk page? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Behnam 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you had to get an argument with that troll. The Behnam 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Freeman

Yeah, I know this isn't usual of us to permit that kind of unconfirmed information through, but there haven't been any complaints. Probably would've been some if he wasn't there. I guess when we find out for sure, we can remove him or slap on a citation. Nice list, by the way! Getting into these lately, are ya? The coding must be fun. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Canceled Superman films and Fight Club in popular culture both got de-prodded on the. very. last. day. I really, really don't want to go through AfD discussions for these. Oh, well... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If Jameson does bring the symbiote in the film, I have the urge to go to all the dissenters' talk pages and say, "I told you so." The temptation is incredible and would be well worth the defense we've been putting up. Also, I noticed on IMDb that Daniel Gillies is listed in the cast? Not that I'm trusting IMDb, but it's getting pretty close to the release date, so the information may be increasingly accurate. If it's true, I'm not sure how John Jameson could fit in the film with the numerous villains and his apparent absence from any sort of love triangle. Of course, this is one fan's inference and certainly not an argument to present on the talk page. I was wondering, though, about the novelization and the storybook -- is it said why the symbiote lands in the park near Parker? It seems like a million in one chance for some crazy alien goo to land near a superhero. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying not to spoil myself with the film, either. Sort of the price that's paid for working on future film articles. It's weird, though -- before I started working on Misplaced Pages, I would find out about some film news on a website and come here to add it. Only, I'd find that it's already been added, and I would think, "Damn, they work fast." But now... I'm so far ahead of these folks now. :-D RSS feeds and Google News Alerts FTW. Speaking of which, I've revised my subpage of future film articles to be updated with IMDb links (mostly locked, though) and links to most of the films' source material. Metal Men is a new addition as well, and there's a new headline under Spider-Man 4 about Maguire leaning toward returning. Just giving you the heads-up on that. As for the symbiote issue, yeah, I plan to present the point that you mentioned, that it wasn't verifiably correct at the time. Imagine putting up with trashtalking on Misplaced Pages -- just how cool can any of us be? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We can request some help from others to increase the chances of a decent editor seeing the film and writing the plot for the article. We can also request semi-protection on top of that because there's bound to be vandalism -- this film's gonna be bigger than 300 (minus the controversy, thank God). As for Fight Club, I agree with you, I don't think that there is overwhelming evidence that the film is now universally acclaimed. The cult status fits, but the Total Film polls aren't enough. (Where was Fight Club in their 2005 poll, anyway?) I haven't really tried to mess with the lead, as I haven't fleshed out Themes and Reception completely yet -- kind of saving the lead for last. Obviously will be a while, since I want to include material from the books I found. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to create a guideline for when to start articles about future films, we could take this a step further and list what references would be acceptable or not. We could list examples of improper novelization/film pairing like Superman Returns and so forth. We could also list rumors from film sites that never panned out and back it with prose saying that there's no verifiable origin for that kind of information. And so forth. Just an idea for the guideline. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have one last exam to prepare for tomorrow night, though -- had one last night, so I slept in this morning. Gotta get on top of the material for this last one, though. Also, I don't know if this would be of any use, but a while ago, ThuranX, Ace, and I were collaborating on a project at User:ThuranX/FutureComicsFilmsPage. It's not quite like what we're planning here, as that one's more about structure, but maybe ideas can be drawn from it. And yeah, it'd be nice to have these kinds of guidelines to show new editors instead of repeating. Like when the meteorite information got re-added by someone new after I archived the talk page, I was thinking, "D'oh!" Had to make the arguments all over again. Anyway, about Metal Men, I've put most of these films' articles on my watchlist (as you can do that for uncreated articles). That's why I cleaned up the subpage this morning -- I came across Escape from New York (2009 film), which is way too pre-emptive. I've prodded it and will probably put it up for AfD if it's de-prodded. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The two interviews with the author of the novelization of Superman Returns, Marv Wolfman, could be implemented as sources to back us outside of Misplaced Pages policies in avoiding novelizations and similar sources as authoritatively speaking for the film's events. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember a while ago that I showed you an interview with a director about the lack of reliability with IMDb, and you responded, using a quote from the interview to reflect the absurdity of it. Do you remember what the context was? I can't find our discussion in my own archives. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind; I found it here. I was telling myself not to ask until I looked everywhere, but I didn't think I would come across it... oh, well, good to be wrong. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I dropped the information off at the subpage project. I should be studying, yeah... I had a review session today, and the exam isn't going to be pretty. I was thinking about getting out of this house to study at Barnes & Noble, but the wiki-nerd in me began contemplating checking out the novelization for Spider-Man 3 while I was there. So, eh. I need to get away from the Internets for a while. What level of sign are you at? I'm starting an ASL Club next year, but we're letting people know about it now, 'cause there's a big waitlist for the courses here at my school. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The people taking the ASL courses here at my university are usually doing it to meet the foreign language requirement. The weird thing is, though, the business school that I attend here has a separate foreign language requirement, which excludes ASL as an option. It's too bad, but I can see why -- it's not exactly part of the business world like actual foreign languages would be. Anyway, from my talks with the ASL professors and proficient students, many students in the class take ASL because it seems like an "easy" choice compared to the other languages. They still struggle, anyway, 'cause I think it's a language that's even less visible outside the classroom than German or Spanish or what-have-you. The different projection (physical gestures instead of auditory) probably doesn't help, either. Good luck on your exam! I do believe I'm gonna make my escape now. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Spidey 3

I asked for independent opinions here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films#Spider-Man 3 plot dispute. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the overhaul? The great thing about Misplaced Pages is that the major films' articles will show up in search engines' top ten results, so we're a better source of information (in one place, that is) than anywhere on the Web. I have to wonder if the fact that we've been pretty comprehensive has reduced the number of anonymous edits adding miscellaneous information. I'm sure the lack of a Trivia section helps that, too. There are probably people who come here, though, and wish there was a Trivia section to read about little things instead of the entire production of the film. That's why we have IMDb! :-D —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:SmallvilleSeason1fullcast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SmallvilleSeason1fullcast.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TV.com

As a member of said project...... I'd be interested to know where you pulled that from. User submitted sources do not meet the criteria as a secondary source. Matthew 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. Firstly the person who added a star to the Smallville LOE is not an admin. Secondly your message doesn't make sense, where am I using IMDb "on all those individual episode pages" as a source? I don't believe I've ever done such a thing. TV.com has minimal editorial oversight (and is full of incorrect information), incorrect information can easily be submitted thus making it non-reliable. I see no reliable source (such as a press release) to confirm those are indeed the production codes and not something a fan made up. Matthew 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any intentions of going around creating a billion stubs - if I create an article I put a bit of effort into it and I also source, and prior to removing the TV.com source I did my self look for an adequate source but I came up with nothing. Please do not think I'm targeting the Smallville LOE (I'm a fan of it my self - you know, heh). My apologies if I've come across as rude to you, I'm letting personal stresses seep into my comments - sorry. Matthew 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Smallville

Ok. Nice to be helpful, then. Sorry about my english. --Kal-El 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino

No, unfortunately I haven't seen it -- just another thing on my vast "to do" list that didn't get done. I'll see it eventually. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale plot

I've revisited the plot to review the flow and explanation gaps.

Generally, I agree with your comments on plot detail and length of section (thanks). So I've kept to a minimum this time, and to make it easy have summarized the edits on the talk page in a short list. It is still a reasonable length, but now fully explains the film. I also removed a couple of unnecessary details - figured that would be good practice too.

Please let me know your comments, but can we discuss rather than revert if you have concerns, since this edit looks good to me.

Many thanks. FT2 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)