Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, thanks for your note, but I checked both sources and one says it took him 12 days to write, and the other says "I spent a year researching and digging up old county courthouse records, city calls records and criminal records and finally pieced the whole thing together. I sat on it for a long time, and then one day, the structure just sort of cracked in my head, and I wrote down the draft that I eventually sold in about 11 days." -- I.e. it took him 11 days to write the draft he later sold. There's nothing about the speed at which it was sold (and hey, Ron Howard optioned it, he didn't buy it at first). As corroboration, I have a 4 page Creative Screenwriting interview with the writer where it also says it took 11 days to write. Have I missed the bit in the current sources where it mentions the speed of selling? Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
As you can tell, I've been looking at the article, and you really have done a great job. I'm sure you'll be able to handle the "Reception" section admirably. Hope you'll be ready for the onslaught of coverage when this film is publicly released! If you want me to poke around for any print sources on Access World News or the like in that timeframe, just let me know. My only suggestion at this point is to ultimately cut back on the film festival mentions in the lead section when we know the overall reception of the film. Otherwise, very nice going! Have your eye on any other future films after this one? I think I'm going to be hands-off the future film articles for the time being... with graduate school in full swing, it's hard to tend or care for articles of films that may not be so great. Probably will be sticking around WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM and maybe get Fight Club up to par when I can. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Steve,
In reference to your question on User_talk:Dan_Dassow#Changeling_poster:
Yes, there was a discussion on the IMDb regarding similarities between the appearance Jason Butler Harner and Gordon Stewart Northcott. One of the people on the discussion is John Tobin, an actor who had a minor (and probably uncreditted) role in Changeling (film). Someone also posted a side-by-side comparison like this one.
Gordon Stewart Northcott:
Beyond this image of Northcott, there are a number of other pictures available at the Los Angeles Public Library via in their photo search catalog with the keyword "Northcott". Licensing information can be found here.
Note there are three pictures of Christine Collins in this collection.
Jason Butler Harner:
There is a still picture of Harner from Changeling at this website, but is considered spam by Wikipedia. http://aceshowbiz.com/still/00002886/changeling21.html
I believe there is another subconscious factor at work beyond the physical similarity. The names Jason Butler Harner and Gordon Stewart Northcott are both said with the same rhythm pattern.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as the spelling corrections, I notice that you and Erik made a large number of edits in the last few days. I noticed that centrepiece was spelled that way in the lead and centerpiece in another section. (I've seen centrepiece / centerpiece spell both ways regarding the NYFF and had to check their website to be certain.) Since I was checking the spelling of one word, I thought it best to spell check the whole article. I simply copied the printable version of the article into Word and use the application spell check.--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Link to pictures of Jason Butler Harner is here.--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Steve, congratulations on finding the URL for the production notes. Universal significantly upgraded their Official promotional website. It includes the three TV ads and other downloads.--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Three items I thought you would find interesting:
Universal's Official Changeling website (http://www.changelingmovie.net/) now has foreign language trailers. Click on the flag at the bottom of the home page.
Top-to-bottom, left-to-right
1 Mexico - sub-titled
2 Spain - dubbed
3 France - sub-titled
4 Germany - dubbed
5 Italy - dubbed
6 Czech Republic - sub-titled
7 Brazil - sub-titled
8 Luxemburg - sub-titled
9 Portugal - sub-titled
10 Slovenia - sub-titled
11 Turkey - sub-titled
12 Hungary - sub-titled
13 Ukraine - dubbed
14 Finland - sub-titled
15 Greece - sub-titled
16 South Korea - sub-titled
17 Taiwan - sub-titled
At the bottom of Universal's Official Changeling there is also a link to
Historical coverage of the true story behind the Changeling in the LA Times Archives
http://www.latimesinteractive.com/advertising/changeling/Changeling-V4.html
The German language poster just came out. The art is different, and in my humble assessment, better than the English and French language posters.
Image: http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/changeling/changeling2_large.jpg
http://www.worstpreviews.com/media.php?id=946&image=1&place=posters&place2=poster
--Dan Dassow (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I reviewed the plot summary for Changeling (film) in your sandbox. From what I know about the film, the plot summary is accurate. Although I have not read the screenplay or seen the film, I've read enough about the case and virtually all of the reviews. I will review the plot summary again after I see Changeling on Friday.
German poster for Changeling.
Der Fremde Sohn
Um ihr Kind zu finden,
folgte sie unbeirrt ihrem Weg.
eine wahre Geschichte
Official German Changeling website: http://www.der-fremde-sohn-film.de
(Note: this currently re-directs to Universal's German website).
According to http://www.universal-pictures-international-germany.de/, the German premiere is January 22, 2008.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steve, SandyGeorgia asked me to take a look at you as a potential admin candidate. She asked me to review you because I've developed a little bit of a reputation for how I vet candidates. I'll spend about 2-6 hours reviewing potential candidates for potential issues that might doom an RfA and assessing whether or not I think a person would be a good admin or not. Sandy wants me to look at you, but before I do so, I wanted to find out if it was something you were interested in? At first look, I don't see anything that will doom you (except for your having one of those annoying Talk Pages where you respond on the other person's talk page---that makes following conversations EXTREMELY difficult.) If you want me to check out, let me know (here).---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd love to help you out with the Creative Screenwriting magazine, but I don't have access to a scanner to send you the article unfortunately. Can't Borders or someone order you a copy? Malick78 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a great pleasure to see you elected as a coordinator, and I look forward to working with you! I've presented an opening slate of items, and your comments are requested. (Additionally, if you haven't already, you must add the coordinator talk page to your watchlist.) Congrats and speak soon, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point about revising Rotten Tomatoes. I was actually scouring LexisNexis Academic this morning and emailed myself over 50 articles from 1999, mostly reviews (with some being possibly new production information). Do you think that we should narrow the usage of RT to solely Top Critics? Or treat Top Critics as more contemporary and the overall score more retrospective? How about Metacritic? I am considering revising the section anyway before getting to work on academic journals. Might be a bit long, but I want to break it up into objective segments. Geography or publication type, maybe? I have to say that I wish I didn't go back and look for more academic journals... apparently I've stepped up in researching, being able to dig up quite a few more. I really need to put together a schedule for this article if I want it to be FA of the Day by its 10th anniversary. :) Any interest at all in helping, based on the journals and their titles? I was considering combining "Filmmakers' themes" with these and keeping it on one article, spinning off later if necessary. For example, we can include the filmmakers' stance on masculinity then show what others have said. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. Alientraveller (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Aka I'm dumb. I removed your proposed deletion, thinking I could salvage the article. Well, now I can't find that the film has even begun filming yet, so it doesn't meet notability criteria. Oops! If you want to add it to Articles for Deletion, please feel free, and I apologize for jumping the gun on this and causing you possible extra work in the nomination for deletion. raven1977 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is up for A-class reviews. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I have addressed the A-class comments. Wildroot (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but feel free to "endorse" it (I need three of those) to pass off for A-class. Or you can address further comments. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you yet again, but there have been three endorsements. However, the discussion must be closed by a lead coordinator, and you are a lead coordinator. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
For extraordinary editing on Shane (film). Keep up the great work! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The proper call on the article. As I stated at the AfD, I have a better copy saved in a workspace and will br glad to bring it to mainspace when it will then be worth having. A "delete without prejudice' serves wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steve: it's great to see your input at FAC. I've just asked for a "Quick-fail" at "Veronica Mars" because of the dreadful prose; by this, I mean that it was a premature nomination and will require far too much scarce reviewer-resources to fix in the tight timeframe of the FAC list (it bloats very easily).
May I suggest that you consider a similar declaration when in such a situation, seeing even more issues than those raised by the excellent Ealdgyth? More opposes and quick-fails might seem like harsh medicine, but it's tough love to maintain a culture at FAC that is conducive to high standards, good preparation (i.e., not using it as a free advice page), a reasonably prompt process, and a list that is under control. Reviewers tend to be turned off when the list is huge.
It is my honor, as the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Films, to give you the inaugural conferral of the WikiProject Service Award, Second Class - the Silver Reel. Awarded for meritorious service in completing the entirety of your 0.7 worklist. Most gratefully, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Rudd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering if you could consult on this? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
...for the help at WP:FAC. For future reference, you could have just removed the listing at WP:FAC and moved it into the archive file; if the {{fac}} stayed on the page, Gimmebot would complete the process later (adding archive tags, removing the {{fac}} tag and completing articlehistory). I *think* the bot would have stalled since you did part (well, most!) of its work, so I went ahead and completed articlehistory just in case. The cheat sheet is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Withdrawn by nominator FACs, with the full-blown botification steps at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps. Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you were a Clint Eastwood fan or not, but Gran Torino is the next one out, and the article sure could use some love. Any interest in collaboration? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You've seen Changeling have you? Alientraveller (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Was it State of Play that nearly died on the table a week before production? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Got your message about Harry Potter being nominated for FAC. It probably could use more work before being accepted as a featured article. Maybe I'll work on it. Thanks!PNW Raven (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the tracking system will draw us back into the fold of the future films department! :) I've written a "Tracking" section for the department's page, and when reviewing what else to revise, I thought that maybe we should have an in-depth essay about why WP:NFF is appropriate. (Thought this especially after the comments by you and Girolamo at the Saw AFD.) It might be a good way to explain the fallacies of expectations for filming to actually begin. That way, we don't have to repeat our arguments again and again. We could point to it and copy parts of it to a relevant discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Steve, both your user page and discussion page look fine to me. --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You've done an amazing job with the article! Keep up the great work! But, I'm sure you've got plenty more like it :) Cheers! Gary King (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can get an admin to do that, please do that...or start a discussion on the page. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it'd slide in a GAC/FAC if I used this article to write up a reception section? Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, the folks who wrote that section in WP:MOS simply got it wrong. The em-dash and en-dash are normally treated as non-breaking characters. By not having spaces before and after them, if they tie two long words together, it can cause havoc in narrow columns. It's considered bad typographic form to break a line before a hyphen, em-dash or en-dash, so that's why I put a non-breaking space before the em-dash and en-dash in my edits. (At least that's what I was taught in 1971 in my high school typing class by Miss Engdahl, a business school graduate.) In commercial work you'll never see a line break before one of these characters, unless the typesetter screwed up. So, what's left? The only conclusion we can come to is put a non-breaking space before the em-dash and en-dash, with a normal space after them. Maybe the committees that edit WP:MOS will eventually see the error of their ways and correct the situation. —QuicksilverT @ 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, since you seem to be one of the coordinators of the film WikiProject, I was wondering if you could lend your opinion on a discussion concerning which poster should be used for the article. Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems like it has been argued that ISO dating does not clarify to readers what it could be, especially with months and days switched around... for example, is 2008-06-05 June 6, 2008 or 6 May 2008? Writing it out like that makes it consistent to the formatting used throughout the article. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Steve, could you read this article about the legalities of the film and summarise it for me? You're very good at explaining technical things like this clearly. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's fabulous. Thank you. Wikipedia should thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.29.159 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, since I withdrew the FAC I've gotten a couple articles from InterLibraryLoan and have added substantially to the production section of the article. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and see if it meets your criteria now. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think my issue has more to do with that editors tend to be complacent in developing Featured Articles about films that have long-term relevance. I agree with your assessment about how Featured Articles for recent films should be approached, but I guess it seems like a Featured Article is considered "done" most of the time. Such an article can be useful in sharing information as reported in its contemporary time frame. It seems to me that the real value lies in significant, retrospective coverage. Maybe I am getting my head all wrapped up in themes, but after digging up so many on Fight Club and recently Dark City (resources), I just find a lot information that would really impact someone's understanding of the film, as opposed to "Oh, that's cool" moments (which I enjoy myself, don't get me wrong). I don't know what the best way to tell if an articles has longer-term promise, but a few factors seem to stand out. Films that clearly have a deeper reading (like the ones you mentioned) and have garnered some accolades, films that gain a cult following, mainstream films that are based on historical events, and Hollywood blockbusters. I think that even Transformers has some additional potential. Yes, it's a fun film, but at the same time, a film that makes such a big splash can serve as commentary on society. I poked around for coverage related to Transformers, and I found three that talked about entertainment violence in a post-9/11 world. I was only able to access one, Film Quarterly, and here's what it said:
“ | This offers the temptation to look at things that can't be seen; to look inside things. Hence the most shocking moment of Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007). The film, like the toys and cartoons preceding, features a galactic struggle between good Autobots and evil Decepticons, both capable of transforming between humanoid and machine aspects. The conflict has come to earth and gathered up some hapless humans: soldiers, models, Shia LaBeouf. During the epic finale of urban conflict, there's a brief "shot" of the late-arriving Decepticon, Starscream (in his mechanical form as a jet) smashing into and blurring through an office tower. We watch from a magical viewpoint, mid-air outside the office windows; the windows spool past like frames of celluloid. They reveal the interior stuff with impossible detail: desks, fluttering papers, bodies being tossed asunder, before Starscream blasts out the building, leaving a defined exit wound. The sequence lasts less than two seconds. Yet it's by far the most detailed reconstruction of what was hidden from our human eyes within the spectacularly visible violence of September 11, 2001. At the same time, it gets at the kernel of truth within the Transformers franchise (and the timeliness of this restoration). No other device so lovingly preserves the boy's dream that every single object in the world is a weapon: cars, planes, bodies. Car bomb, 9/11, suicide bomber: the fantasy of weaponization is merely the reality of asymmetric warfare, and the story of how it was finally brought to the United States. The movie really should be titled Transformers, or a Brief History of 21st Century Combat. Square-jawed officer Josh Duhamel's one task in the film is to deliver the news to our just-a-boy hero: "we're all soldiers now." If there is anything peculiar to this insight, it's the abandoning of humanist cant in which heroes are true individuals, fighting the inhuman ideological mass of the enemy (naturally, each side tends to claim this position for themselves). Transformers identifies a world where that opposition collapses in the confluence of total mechanization and total militarization for all sides. Everyone's an interchangeable part stamped out by historical necessity. Such a world view may be endemic to a film starring models rather than individuals. Many of the models are cars; every vehicle that appears, including the Autobots but also siding with the villains, is from General Motors. This is not quite the nostalgia of Death Proof. It does however summon the era in which all cars in America were American cars which is to say, the great epoch of U.S. factory industrialism, which just happens to be congruent with the ascent of U.S. empire. This is the film's reasoning, strange and impeccable. In trying to think about the posthuman future, Transformers can't help summoning the dawn of the posthuman past: a vision in which universal conscription and the invention of the assembly line are the selfsame fact, Napoleon and Henry Ford a singular individual priming the motor of our history. |
” |
A Good Article is defined as "articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality". The latter statement is what has stood out for me. You're not going to see something like Surf Ninjas become a Featured Article, and I guess I am hesitant to say more information from that contemporary time frame qualifies the article. I know that Featured Articles of the Day sometimes attract people who bitch about the subject matter like a video game article that does not have more than 30 KB of content... I don't join them in their diatribes, but it just seems like there needs to be something more in some cases. I don't know if you were around when Bignole and I debated with Awadewit about themes, but the editor left me with a change of heart in realizing that films were artistic mediums (as opposed to a biographical article or a corporate article), even where they may not seem like it at times (torture porn films, for instance). I guess I feel a need to be heavy-handed in FAC processes, so I avoid them as not to be a Debbie Downer... I can tell when I dig up resources that could be used for the article that the editors haven't tried to do more than scratch the surface. A lot of editors use easy-to-find resources to build up articles either due to lack of access or due to not knowing about looking behind them. Just seems like an article can be built based on the whole spectrum of resources; it's not supposed to be easy to get the star. That's why I keep being bullish about Fight Club... now that I know the stuff is out there, I make it a bigger mission for myself. I know that not everything will fit, so I will consolidate where possible, but the resources, as you may have seen, deserve a look.
And by the way, I was actually finishing up the last episode of Season 1 of Mad Men last night... was watching most of it this past weekend. I really do like the show! It can feel misogynistic, and I keep telling myself, that is the intent of the show, it is not like films of the 1990s or even today playing to the gender stereotypes that go on. Definitely will keep up with it! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.