User talk:ThuranX/FutureComicsFilmsPage

Opening paragraph questions

• What place should producers or executive producers have in the opening paragraph(s), if any at all?

Mentioned only if they've been around for multiple installments of a series, or if they've worked with the same team before, i.e., of the producer of 300 also worked on sin city.ThuranX 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What about notable producers such as Joel Silver and Steven Spielberg, or a notable figure producing, such as Peter Jackson being executive producer for the Halo film? --Erik 18:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm. Well, 'notability' is tough, but if we err on the side of caution, and really go for the truly notable, as above, or, also, i'd say if thematically there's a significant connection, Like Daid Goyer producing another marvel comics films. Even if it's not a sequel to his prior efforts, his long comicsfilm history is worthy of note. but we can always discusson talk first. I'd say that's case by case. ThuranX 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Should "same name" piped wiki-links be permitted; e.g., "[300]" is adapted from Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name about the Battle of Thermopylae"?

Sure. How else would it be written? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's just a personal opinion, but I've never liked that implementation. I guess it just seems that it would involve an extra "step" of thinking for some people to make the connection where you can just identify the source's title, even if it matches, just like a source's nonmatching title. --Erik 18:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as I hate the 'lazying' of american society, this is about information, and information should be direct and clear to spread fastest. I'd say the in-lining stays.ThuranX 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Erik makes a good point. But remember, we talking about permitability, not a standard policy either way. In terms of permission, yes. Standard? No. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, unless style guides preclude it.ThuranX 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do films that have a sequel (Batman Begins) warrant a wiki-linked mention of its successor (The Dark Knight)?

Yes, both in the text of the opening para, and in the infox, if any. ThuranX 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• How should the reception of a film be worded without sounding weasely?

By citing opening weekend numbers, professional reviews, 'man on the street' reviews, and major 'bloggish' reviews, like AICN and Rotten Tomatoes, and finally by awards and distinctions. This shouldn't be opening para stuff. ThuranX 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask because this guideline says, "The second [lead] paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced." --Erik 18:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to cram all reaction into the second lead. We can say well recieved, adn leave the reviews and awards for a section in the post-release version. ThuranX 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. "Well/poor". Always keep it short and simple in the intro. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• What place should a plot outline have in the opening paragraph? My suggestion below:
  • If the film is based on a comic book character (Spider-Man, Batman), avoid mention of plot outline
  • If the film is based on a one shot comic book (Sin City, 300), mention plot outline

Avoid in all cases unless the story can be explainmed simply or it is abolutely necessary. It's like disambiguation. If you can list something simply, don't make it complex or get redundant. Plot is mentioned elsewhere, the intro isn't for that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. I guess in some cases like 300, which can basically say it's based on the Battle of Thermopylae, it would work. Most movies can't be summed up so easily, though. I'll go for that. --Erik 18:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

yep. ThuranX 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ThuranX 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any other pertinent information to include in the opening paragraph(s)?

I think we've got sufficient modelling in extant pieces ,and as we all collaborate, this will 'gel' into a standard format.ThuranX 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to insert your comments between the lines so you can express your opinion on each question. --Erik 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I'm liking how this is going. Good work, guys.

Application of template

Can I ask how this template will differ from WikiProject Films' style guidelines? It just seems to me that a lot of what we address here can be applied to many, if not all, film articles on Wikipedia. I'm just wondering how this comic-book-film-oriented template can specifically differ (if it's trying to differ) from general guidelines. Is this mainly just a personal project for ourselves and other editors who may get on board in editing comic book film articles, or what? --Erik 18:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that so long as we're not overtly ignoring WP:Film, we'll be fine nad where there are conflicts, if they bring them up, we can work together. However, we also are a sort of 'bridge group, in that we've got comics minded folk who want the pages to be mreo comic book material oriented, with analyses of the differences between movie and source, and film people, who want the cinematography and costuming (for example) spoken to more. Our little hyperactive comicsfilm team should be working to keep the two balanced, and I think our template offers a solid, stable 'platform' to work from. Certainly not all Comicsfilms are going to fit perfectly. Ghost Rider may open to a christian coalition protest (For example. I have no proof of any such protetss being planned.) and we will find it necessary for a controversy section there, whereas the Iron Man page may require a 'broken physics' section, and the Wonder Woman movie might need a section on 'mythological connectiosn and references'. That said, we've got the first few steps set up. I'll answer the rest of the talk page after my grocery run. ThuranX 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable and authoritative sources

I had a question about citing sources. Is it unethical to circumvent a source through which you discovered a piece of news to cite the original source? For example, I found out about composer Hans Zimmer returning to The Dark Knight via Batman-on-Film.com. However, when I edited this mention into the film article, I circumvented BOF and mentioned the original source, which was SoundtrackNet.com. I chose to do this for a couple of reasons -- 1) BOF is poor when it comes to classifying articles, so in a couple of weeks, the same Hans Zimmer mention would be halfway down the page, and 2) BOF has not struck me as an authoritative source with its peddling BS rumors (like they just recently revealed that Phillippe was never in talks to be Harvey Dent, despite all their "scoopers" telling them this was so). I noticed that SuperHeroHype.com cited SoundtrackNet.com directly for the Hans Zimmer news, but I can't tell if they did what I did in circumventing BOF, or got sent in the information from that domain (without mention of BOF). I have the same concerns about other citations in the comic book films we've worked on. The citations I've made, such as Variety articles, have been through news archives of movie news aggregator sites (for the sake of the most reliable and most authoritative source possible, obviously the original). Is there a specific policy addressing or contesting this behavior?

Also, I've been working on a couple of personal projects. I've put together a link repository of comic book film adaptations, video game film adaptations, and science fiction films, as well as a film article expansion guide. The guide is what prompted my question about circumventing certain sources, since I've outlined my methodology in it. I just want to know if it was unethical or not. Addressing this could be important for this particular template as well. --Erik 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that it's MORE ethical to go back to the original site for citation whenever possible, thus avoiding the risk of a subsequent site using part of the quote out of context. ThuranX 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources like BOF should be avoided/ignored altogether. Right or wrong, good points not to cite them have been made when it comes to verifibility. Anyway, they got lucky on this. The policy should be: "Sources whose reliability and verifibility have come into question are invalidated. Any citation to them should be removed or replaced with a clearer and more reliable/verifible source." Even if Wikipedia feels truth is secondary or relative, we certainly can't have sources which cannot even be verified. Thus, STN is the source. Accept not substitutes. Hope that helps. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(and for those who've missed it, Ace keeps a HUGE penny collection, so that he can always give his two cents worth. lol.)

Resurrection?

So, guys... is this project dead in the water or what? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this: a shark wouldn't hesitate to eat it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no ... Come on. I've been incredibly busy with a new job, and I think we've done well enough with this idea. I didn't honestly realize this would be such a long term project. I thought we'd work out the basics and go from there. I'll try to do some modding tonight, though. ThuranX 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast section:

Should we use a table, like Iron Man has, or the small listing style, like The Dark Knight (film)? I prefer the small list, as it gives a precis, instead of the table, which makes you hunt all over. Cast is cast, plot is plot, the two are different, I think. ThuranX 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Erikster and others have shown preference for a or other non- template/table style. Certain certified good/featured articles also use that style. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that non-template styles should be used for franchise films, such as the superhero films, the Star Wars films, and Pirates films. I will probably convert Iron Man to a non-template style as more information comes out, as the characters are usually otherworldly enough to warrant a one or two sentence description. For something like The Fountain, though, I would use a table. I think for comic films, we'd usually see the non-template style. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncast vs. unconfirmed

Isn't the title "unconfirmed" too ambigious as a title, and a bit redundant with "uncast"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think for The Dark Knight, "uncast" was a unique situation. I don't think we'd see many instances of needing "Uncast" and "Unconfirmed" in the future. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's rare, but it's also already happened again with The Mandarin, so including it in the template, as a guide for those rare occasions where it occurs, is worthwhile. No one is saying it'll be used all the time, but let's agree on how to handle the situation when it does arise. ThuranX 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No. As I said, Unconfirmed castings are 'Producer bob has admitted he's in talks with two actors regarding the role of stupendousman; Agents for both superstar Tom and superstar Dick confirmed that they are the two actors bob referred to.' Uncast roles are like The Mandarin in the Iron Man film, wherein the producers and directors agree publicly that the character will appear, but no actor's been rumord or selected. Unconfirmed reflects that a known role has rumored actors, and uncast is before that, where the role is known, but nobody's confirming the negotiations of any actors. ThuranX 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ambiguous and arguably redundant. By ambiguous, I mean it invites rumors. By your own admission, that section is likely to have "rumored actors". Whether an actor expressed interest is moot. You define both as a case of a role being confirmed to exist, but no actor having officially claimed it. Also, to this end, do we really need the semi-redundant "confirmed" section? Much like saying "notible" and other phrases, it's a discourable qualifier.

Things should go more like this:

==Cast==

* Bob (actor)
* Tom
* Dick

<-- optionallly, anything after this COULD be a subsection -->

==Uncast role(s)==

==Returns (or whatever you want to call it)==

Hmm? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing we do is going to stop rumors. We can manage it better though in othr ways. Uncast but confirmed roles is different than a confirmed role with unconfirmed but actively negotiated roles. IF it's got to be one or the other, Uncast Roles should be the preferred heading, as with Joker in TDK, we knew he'd be in it before we had a cast confirmation. Anyways, go with Uncast Roles. Take a look at other sections. I'll work on it more tomorrow. ThuranX 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)