Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:35, 28 October 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Green Mile (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Film: American Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Format for song list

The current format for the song list on the soundtrack are obnoxiously long and take up a very large space, collapsing them makes reading the article easier. And I'm not really sure what your Film MOS argument is. Kuro ♪ 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the film MoS, if tracklistings are included in a film article, they should be formatted in a specific format, which is not collapsed. Personally, I don't think the tracklisting is needed at all, but if its going to be here, it needs to use the proper format. The collapsing format is only used in discographies.-- ] (] · ]) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot details

Are rather hazy. It would be helpful if it also tells us why the protaganist tells his friend all about the events at the prison i.e; the reason he started crying, due to the memory of the music on the television being associated with the memory of John Coffey watching a film for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.119.238 (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am adding to the plot and will eventually finish this off with more detail and in the correct order —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlea79 (talk • contribs) 09:03, June 23, 2009

Your addition was reverted. Misplaced Pages plot summaries are not for blow by blow events and the opening is already adequately summarized. The plot is already too long and does not need even more minute detail added. See WP:MOSFILM and WP:WAF for our guidelines regarding film plots. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ok sorry, the notes suggest that the plot needs some work, what can be done in order to improve this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlea79 (talk • contribs) 10:40, June 23, 2009

Um...that note is almost a year old. The plot has long since been fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

POV?

The article had a POV tag, but no explanation on the talk page, or some talk which could be interpreted as an explanation. I have therefore removed the POV tag. Cheers. 77.250.234.174 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been put back. If you don't understand why a tag is there, ask, don't just remove. The article is tagged for NPOV because the plot is obviously written by a fan or someone who enjoyed the film and is injecting their own personal opinions, rather than being a straight-forward plot summary. The line "Notwithstanding Coffey's incredible abilities and the wrongness of his conviction" in particular is an obviously non-neutral interpretation of the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the three tags. If you put tags on a page, you have to explain why on the talk page. (a) The NPOV issue is not serious. Someone enjoyed the film, so what?! You're welcome to tone things down if you like. (b) Original research; what exactly is original on this page? (c) Why do you say there are no references? There is one major reference: the film itself! And hence IMDB records etc. And that is probably enough. If you have problems with a page, the best thing to do is to try fixing it. WP:SOFIXIT. 87.112.30.195 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say you have to explain tags on the talk page? Lots42 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From Template:Original research: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."; From Template:NPOV: "explain your reasons on the article's talk page". 87.112.30.195 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Try again. I explained at your request. Stop removing the tags, and don't throw around "sofixit" as an excuse to remove them. Only the NPOV tag says its good to explain on the page, nor is it blatantly required. The rest of your reasoning is frankly BS, so again stop removing the tags. You don't like them, be useful and actual edit to fix the article instead of complaining. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! and my edit was "reverted as vandalism"! I didn't mean to cause offence, and I've tried to improve the sentence you mentioned earlier. Here are some more quotes: From Template:NPOV: "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute." I can't find what the "ongoing dispute" is here. From WP:TEMPLATE: "Before placing templates on a page ... determine whether or not the improvements could be made easily, thus eliminating the need for a tag." (By the way, I am not 77.250.234.174! so evidently someone else is also concerned about all the tagging.) Please, either explain the problems or do not include the tags. Cheers, 87.114.151.119 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Because YOU keep removing the template after getting the explanation you demanded because you don't like them. There are MANY issues with this article, so stop removing the tags. Its obvious you will remove any tag, valid or not, just because you dislike the appearance of them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And just a reminder to keep things civil, especially when people have legitimate concerns (you can't "tag and run" and leave people guessing). That said there are problems with this article and it needs much more than just a retelling of the plot (like a better reception, material on the background and production, etc.) so I'm tagging with {{refimprove}}. (Emperor (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

No body "tagged and run" as I obviously have this page on my watchlist. He asked for an explanation, was given it, and still continues removing the tags. Now he is just being obtuse and removing tags for visual preferences rather than actual legitimate concerns. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made an account, so we can keep track of who said what. NB, as I mentioned above, I am NOT the IP who first removed the tags. Also, I have no problem with tags, if they are justified. If they are not justified or explained, they serve no purpose. Please stop insulting me, calling me a vandal, saying that my concerns are illegitimate, saying that I am talking BS. That is not fair. I am trying to improve wikipedia. GreenMileHigh (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have little patience for people who continue removing valid tags despite having the reasons for those tags HAVE already been justified and explained. What do you want, a detailed five page report? The first IP asked, I explained, period. Now the issues need to be fixed. Requoting the same text from the template is absolutely pointless, and does nothing to advance the discussion. The explanation HAS been given. If you still don't understand the issues, go read WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:MOSFILM. How are you "improving" Misplaced Pages by pretending this article does not have a ton of issues and, rather than taking your own advice of "sofixit", just removing the tags that alert people to those issues? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What is needed?

Hello, I am trying to work out what the problem is that Collectonian has with this article. Emperor has suggested

• it needs information about reception,
• material on the background and production

I understand these suggestions and agree that they would enrich the article. If Collectionian thinks the article is incomplete, because these sections are missing, perhaps we should make it a stub, rather than putting on tags.

I have questions about the tags that are currently in place. Please can you help explain?

• Is the plot summary still considered biased? I cannot see a significant bias there. Can you explain?
• Where is the original research? I don't understand which part of the article is original. Can you explain?
• Why are more references needed? Two important references are IMDB, and the film itself. Which parts of the existing article are unreferenced? Which claims are unverified? GreenMileHigh (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your questions have already been explained, multiple times. The article has ONE reference. IMDB is NOT a reliable source and can not be used as a reference here at all. None of the awards are referenced, nor is the soundtrack information (a section which is also using an unnecessary non-free image and infobox). The film is only a valid reference for the plot and the cast, nothing else. This article needs a lot of work. It has no production information, despite there being plenty available, nor does it have any actual usable reception information ("freshness rating is useless"). The plot is heavily biased and contains a glut of personal interpretation (i.e. WP:OR) rather than being a straight forward accounting of the film's events. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The "plot" did not seem to overly gluttonous to me, but I've had a go at neutralizing it. Should we make the article a stub? until the production and reception information are included? I am not sure what kinds of reference are needed for the awards and soundtrack; I'll leave that to you. Are the DVD/CD boxes a good enough reliable reference? they presumably have this information. GreenMileHigh (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The plot still needs work, but at least it is more neutral. The first part is still off, but its better anyway. I think this article does ride the line between stub/start, but for now might as well leave it as a start. For the awards, the best references are the award sites themselves. Otherwise, news reports or magazine articles about the film winning the awards work as well. For the soundtrack, the CD can be a source for the listing, but the release date/company should come from another reliable source, either reviews, press release, or as a last resort, a trusted retail site (Amazon, for example). Ditto the DVD releases. The extras on the DVD can be used as references for the production information, as can other reliable sources. As a note, I did not just "tag and run" this article...it is on my "to do" list (along with its poor book article), but I was working on getting some other film articles to GA first.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I might have a go at those sources in a while. GreenMileHigh (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the previous section you might want to read WP:WAF if you think the content and sources are enough. The bottom line is that if people want the plot they can watch the film. If you are looking to improve this article and make it into a well-rounded article suitable for an encyclopaedia then it needs a lot more on the background and reception. At the moment it contains a mass of plot and an unsourced list of awards - which is barely adequate. (Emperor (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

See also

This movie is quite similar with a TV episode, but I can't remember which. It will be nice if anyone could tell me the name of it so we could put a reference somewhere. If it helps, in that episode, the guy is resurrected at the end, by all who he helped. ---- (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me, and trivial at best. Nothing to mention here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I got it! Is the episode "Life on Death Row" from Amazing Stories (TV series). You should see this before saying these two don't have much in common. Now, how could I add this note to stay on that page and not get deleted by mods? Thanks. --Ternami 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't. YOU think it has something in common with the series, presumably because you feel one is influenced by the other. Without a real source saying so, however, the claim can not be made and its WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ternami: A google search reveals that you are definitely not the first person to notice this. Maybe you can find a reliable source that documents it. (Who knows, maybe it inspired Stephen King...) GreenMileHigh (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Several sites (here are a couple: shawshankredemption.net and swisschalet.eu) have a trivia section with something like "Ten years before the release of the book, an episode of the sci-fi/fantasy show Amazing Stories featured a nearly identical plot. In the episode, entitled 'Life on Death Row', an inmate (Patrick Swayze) discovers he can heal even death at a touch..." I don't know why the info should be on "The New York Times" to be accepted as the truth. All I said is that a mention like the previous quote will be nice to have.
But I'm not here to cause trouble and I appreciate all the efforts you make to keep this wiki "well presented". Thanks.
I'm just glad I found the info, but is just too bad that I can't share it with wikipedia. This was the first place where I've looked for it ;) --Ternami 20:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Please stop edit warring and reach consensus about the genre of the film. > RUL3R_>vandalism 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a prison film, all its drama is covered by the prison film genre. Most prison films are dramas, so "drama film" is not necessary when the movie is specially a prison film. 201.95.48.66 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is not redundant per se. I would personally settle with "prison/drama film". A prison film may be an action film and not necessarily a drama. > RUL3R_>vandalism 00:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is redundant at all. A prison film genre could mean anything from an explotation film to a drama film to a comedy film so I believe that drama is the only proper way to place it into a genre. It is stated futher into the article that the film takes place within a prison. Tresiden (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

True, there are action prison movies, there are thriller prison movies, but the majority of prison films are dramas. 201.95.48.66 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Imdb.com lists both drama and crime, also fantasy and mystery. > RUL3R_>vandalism 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Imdb is not reliable, they list The Godfather Part III as an action movie, all the genres at imdb are user-submitted. Green Mile is not a crime film because crime films are about gangsters or comitting specific crimes. It's not necessary to say this movie is a drama, when there is a specefici genre for it, prison film. Prison film is not a genre, but it is a type of film to help identify better a movie. it's like superhero film, you don't need to write "batman is an action film", just batman is a superhero movie, because superhero movie may also encompass crime an action. Prison film in this case encompasses all the drama and fantasy/mystery, it makes the article more detailed. 201.95.48.66 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not used by Misplaced Pages as a genre. You are the one edit warring and vandalizing articles with your personal point of view. Consensus already seems well against you by the sheer number of reverters. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a drama. "prison film" is not a genre. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to place this film into an specific genre tough. I has elements from prison, drama and fantasy films. I hold on to my firs suggestion of "prison/drama". > RUL3R_>vandalism 00:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit war! I think it is a drama. A prison is not a wikipedia-approved genre.  Btilm  00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been doing this on multiple articles, and has been blocked, at least for the moment. It is a drama, more than anything, I think. Fantasy implies something different than what we have with Coffey's powers, and it really isn't a "prison film" beyond being set in a prison. Plus, as noted, Prison film isn't really a genre. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Prison is a sub-genre of drama films, which encompasses all the elements of crime and drama. 201.68.138.47 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, now for your next trick, remove prison film for Allmovie, now that I can't edit anymore, why do I have the feeling that collectionan is using multiple accounts to revert my helpful edits? It seems like only ip users get blocked. I am not the one sockpuppertrying. 201.68.138.47 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop undoing others' comments, why is it just me who gets blocked for editwarring? 201.68.138.47 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.138.93 (talk)

I caught this drama (no pun) while doing RC patrols, but I do support the "drama film" wording. Word of advise to the IP(s), if multiple editors are reverting you across multiple articles, stop pushing unsupported changes into the article. Whether you think you're right or wrong, that's not the way to change a long-standing article around here. Get a talk page consensus first and then make the changes.Pinkadelica 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles