Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:57, 19 December 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Secondary source for edit summary claim?

A user made this claim in an edit summary: "Martin has explicitely said this is NOT a parody of Scn", referring to Scientology. It would be quite interesting if there were some valid WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources to back up this information, then we could add it to the article. If not, we can't. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• Found one source, will add it. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done -- Added it, have been looking, haven't found any others so far. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Multiple film critics describe Bowfinger as Scientology spoof

Here is some brief info I put together in a few minutes :

In reviews of the 1999 film Bowfinger, some critics compared the fictional organization "MindHead" to the Church of Scientology. In the film, producer Bobby Bowfinger, played by Steve Martin, encounters difficulties involving actor Kit Ramsey, played by Eddie Murphy. Paul Clinton writes in CNN online: "'Bowfinger' could just be viewed as an out-there, over-the-top spoof about Hollywood, films, celebrities and even the Church of Scientology. But Martin has written a sweet story about a group of outsiders with impossible dreams." Andrew O'Hehir writes in Salon that "Too much of 'Bowfinger' involves the filmmakers' generically wacky pursuit of the increasingly paranoid Kit, who flees into the clutches of a pseudo-Scientology outfit called MindHead (their slogan: 'Truth Through Strength')." The Denver Post describes the Kit Ramsey character as "...petulant, paranoid and pampered, like any good star, and also a devotee of a Scientology-like religion." In a review in the San Francisco Chronicle, Wesley Morris describes Ramsey's organization as "a mock-Scientology cult called MindHead - a bit that sprung from Martin's own issues with MENSA." The Albuquerque Journal describes the MindHead organization "a rather thinly veiled but nevertheless amusing blast at Scientology," and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram characterizes it as an "organization that comes across as a thinly veiled send-up of Scientology." The Daily Record writes that Ramsey is "in the grip of a cult religion called Mind Head," which it calls "a rather close cousin of Scientology". A review in The Dallas Morning News describes actor Terrence Stamp's role in the film as "a Scientology-style guru," The New York Times referred to Stamp's character as "a cult leader for a Scientology-like organization called Mind Head," and the Houston Chronicle described Stamp as "the character actor behind the semi-Scientology guru in Bowfinger."

If you like, I could cite many more sources as well. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Cirt, is there some reason that, amidst all that research, you did not seem to find the statement by Steve Martin himself on the subject. That is a rather glaring omission, my friend. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I just haven't found it yet. But evidently that means you removed the link to Bowfinger without any source to back up your claims. Please see my request for a valid source, at the talk page for Bowfinger. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

I removed unsourced material as is any Wikipedian's right (and duty perhaps). Now that you have sources you can say "which reviewers have compared to Scientology . . ." --JustaHulk (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the exact type of wording that I have used. Please see Bowfinger and its talk page for more on this, instead of clogging up the talk page for the template. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• And I was referring to your lack of sources in your edit summary, which was a claim not backed up by anything save your own personal original research. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• Cough cough . . . And where were the sources when you added the template here - that is what I meant by my edit summary. I am still curious to see if you can manage to find the words by Martin himself on a number of occasions that run counter to your line of work or if you have a blatant blind spot. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I do not understand this "cough cough", as I had added the template after seeing relations to Scientology noted by other editors, and did not add context to articles to that effect, and had intended to add sources at a later point in time, but at any rate. I did add info from Steven Martin, again, please see the talk page for Bowfinger. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• Coughs aside, my remark was that an excellent researcher and experienced editor such as yourself should know better than to add controversial templates based on unsourced statements. And given your pronounced bias, you should be doubly careful. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• As should you, in your claims in edit summaries. And this discussion is neither here nor there anymore, as I have added 10 sources as to the film critics that make Scientology connections, and a source about Steve Martin's statements. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• True, and I think I am. Doubly careful, that is. Here is another, Cirt, with the more complete statement and here is a non-RS archive that you may have already come across. Good night now. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again, this is all now discussion that is getting completely irrelevant to this template talk page, and would be better off on the talk page of the article for Bowfinger. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• Then move it, if it bothers you so much. --JustaHulk (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done. Moved from Template talk:Scientology in popular culture. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Themes

The fact that the Scientology connection is mentioned in multiple sources makes it notable and should be analyzed and discussed in this article. If you wait, I was going to expand that subsection, change its title to Themes, and add some analysis to other cultural references made in the film. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• Please give me some time, I will expand the section next with themes comparing the film to The Producers. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
  • And if you have sources comparing the film as a parody of "Hollywood, films, celebrities", I'd love to add those to the article as well. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
• Cirt, it does not matter how many reviewers have a few words of "Mindhead = Scientology", that does not justify a section all by itself. And if you wanted to discuss "Themes" you could have done that in the first place (and not after I gutted your POV bit). So yes, if you want a section called Themes and want to discuss all the themes with the "Mindhead = Scientology" in proper proportion then fine. My objection to your editing has always been the cherry-picking and skewed proportions, not your ability to research or write (just what use you put those abilities to). I know that you can do better (i.e NPOV) if you care to. So have at it. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, your statements that don't really address the content of the article but instead address me aside, I will take what you said to heart, and find more info on other Themes addressed in the film. After I've found more sources and expanded that section, I will pare down the Scientology bit to be more in context with the rest of the Themes that will be discussed in the Themes section. Cirt (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Thanks. Do that in the first place and you will rarely hear from me; I don't have the time to get in wars and only involve myself if something catches my eye. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Noted. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

1. Clinton, Paul (August 12, 1999). "Review: 'Bowfinger' over-the-top farcical treat". CNN. Time Warner. pp. Section: Movies. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. O'Hehir, Andrew (August 12, 1999). "Bowfinger: Martin and Murphy team up for a good-natured sendup of the mindless summer blockbuster -- and just barely avoid making one themselves". Salon. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Booth, Michael (July 16, 2007). "Martin skewers Hollywood". The Denver Post. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Morris, Wesley (August 13, 1999). ""Bowfinger' has the touchMartin, Murphy make mincemeat out of Hollywood as a down-and-out producer and his "star'". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. Staff (January 1, 2007). "'Bowfinger' Lacks Chemistry Between Martin, Murphy". Albuquerque Journal. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. Staff (January 21, 2000). "Hollywood looks in the mirror, and laughs". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
7. Staff (October 22, 1999). "Martin makes Murphy make magic; BOWFINGER". Daily Record. pp. Section: Features. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
8. Staff (October 23, 1999). "Actor Terence Stamp makes the most of his film roles". The Dallas Morning News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. Holden, Stephen (September 3, 1999). "CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Laughs, Schmaffs. Does It Have an Edge?". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
10. Millar, Jeff (October 15, 1999). "Good acting gives hard-to-follow `Limey' a boost". Houston Chronicle. Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspapers Partnership, LP. pp. Page 4. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles