Talk:Adam Green (filmmaker)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes[edit]

The note page at the bottom should be shortened. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

What is wrong with the reference section? If you look at the source material of the work that is not what it is supposed to look like down there. Can somebody help me fix it please? Creamy3 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. 198.237.17.15 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

How would you rate this page on the quality scale? Creamy3 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Promotional Fan Abuse[edit]

There are some major objectivity issues in this article. It reads like a fan page, especially the frequent mention of highly positive reviews and critics "hailing" each work. According to Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB these moves received a very mixed reception. The critical opinions cited have been selected to show only a one-sided point of view. The style is not especially appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.203.30 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 – Fakedeeps (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is in the mood to do a bit of cleanup, they might check out Adam Green (filmmaker). It's been subject to some rather promotional edits by IP editors that geolocate to Hollywood, California. I'll try to get around to it eventually if nobody else does. At the very least, it could probably use a few more eyes on the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that overall article structure is wrong:
  • Filmography section is ok.
  • Background could be expanded.
  • Subsections Digging Up the Marrow and Adam Green's Scary Sleepover are the ones that need serious cleaning (maybe could have separate articles too).
  • The rest (subsections duplicating info of other articles) can be deleted; however we need to compare them with main articles (just in case they contain some extra information) and then write a brief prose paragraph in place.
  • Paragraph about marriage has been deleted in beginning of 2014. Unless there were any BLP claims and/or consensus, I believe it could be restored.
  • Finally, infobox, navbox and lead could be expanded.
Well, this is just my personal brief review (hope it can be useful). Please discuss, approve/reject suggestions.
IMDb is a good source, thought currently unsure about use/cite permission. Seems quite a lengthy project to get the article in full shape and I am not familiar with the subject neither. Depending on replies here and other contributors' involvement, I might still do some edits next week. Fakedeeps (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the Digging Up the Marrow section, which was perhaps the most promotional. I skimmed over the other sections, and I'll try to get around to them later. In my research for a different Wikipedia article, a number of interviews with Green mentioned his discomfort in discussing his marriage and subsequent divorce. It's likely that either he or a sympathetic fan removed that section. The filmography section looks alright at first, but the extensive credits really make me think that it's verging on a resume. It may need to be spun off into Adam Green filmography, but I guess that's an issue for the article's talk page. The IMDb is not a reliable source, and is specifically called out as such in WP:USERG, which does complicate verifying filmographies. However, it's not impossible; it just takes a bit more work. Given this guy's incredible cult popularity in horror film circles, it should be possible to fill out this article and get it up to GA status if someone were inclined. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am not familiar with this particular subject. If there is(was) any discussion/consensus regarding marriage, we should definitely leave out the controversial playful paragraph that I mentioned earlier. On the other hand, to adhere to NPV it is necessary to state all facts briefly (including Green's feelings/reaction and media coverage), provide reliable secondary sources and protect information from sympathetic editors (unless Green himself officially requests removal).
Do not have much ideas for Filmography (except updating navbox later). If it was possible to reformat section and eliminate writer-director-producer-actor repetition, lists would be much shorter, more efficient and appealing. I will look for sample solutions through Wikipedia, but new article might be the right way here (expanded list, probably, could meet notability).
Article for Digging Up the Marrow is great. However the corresponding subsection on Green's page still seems incoherent, list-like, repetitious and might be trivial for critical reader. As the film now has the separate article, I strongly recommend leaving first paragraph and trimming the rest to something like this (plus some criticism):
After unofficial preview in 2013 at Harry Knowles's annual Butt-Numb-A-Thon; final version of Digging Up The Marrow premiered on August 23, 2014 at Fright Fest in London and immediately sold for both North American and UK theatrical distribution. UK Horror Scene said that it was "one of the scariest films of the past two decades" while Flick Feast called "Digging Up The Marrow" an "event movie that taps into primal fears you didn't even know existed." The film was released in US cinemas and VOD on February 20, 2015 (DVD and Blu-Ray - March 24, 2015).[1] The camera-man and co-star is loyal Green's collaborator since 2000 - Will Barratt.[2][3]
After second look Scary Sleepover section seems acceptable for now. Is there notability (and sources) for separate article there?
How about idea of rewriting Career section as prose? Seems that commonality and availability of separate articles for almost all subsections would imply this. Fakedeeps (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think a lot of this overly-detailed information could be pruned or moved to different articles (if they're notable). Plus, the filmography can probably be turned into a table, like Quentin Tarantino filmography. Thanks for jumping in; this looked like an overwhelming project to do by myself. The article's talk page seems pretty barren, so I guess there hasn't been much consensus for anything except that it's too promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems, I got Filmography section lists to acceptable condition. Also, worked through the rest of article, but it still has issues (lead wording is suboptimal, Career section's layout is wrong, biographical information is incomplete). Strongly recommend withholding table for the separate page. Which, currently, although possibly notable, would add to Wikipedia's imbalance, as most equivalent filmmakers have significantly less coverage. Also, despite compactness and visuality, table's chronological list dilutes main creative work (with other entries). I am uninformed on the subject and might be missing important data; but a close look at cleaned-up Filmography reveals that Green's work follows a simple self-writer/self-director/self-producer/self-actor/(self-publisher/self-promoter/self-biographer) pattern, without any intricate collaborations (a few TV attempts and a minor production role in Grace). Article of Rileah Vanderbilt has a good neutral sentence on marriage (if possible to find reference). Overall, would be nice to have someone knowledgeable contribute more personal-life facts for Biography section. Otherwise, we can move this discussion to the article's talk page. Fakedeeps (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 – Fakedeeps (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined all the IP's changes yet, but it looks like maybe we've drawn the ire of one of the promotional SPAs at Adam Green. It looks like he's not going to let through any negative reviews on Digging Up the Marrow. I'll try to add Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings, but I suspect I'll just get instantly reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a malicious promotional-fan-vandalism, using 2 IP addresses to complicate reversion (common thing considering subject). In the worst case scenario, article might need to be stubbed, leaving only directly referenced content. However, I am sure, this will not be necessary. For now, we should update article's talk page (which already indicates fan abuse) and contact administration to first ban vandals and then, if necessary, semi-protect the page. Meanwhile, please see discussion, page version 1, page version 2, tables and criticize/review new content: I deleted most of inappropriate material from the article and rewritten some paragraphs, still lead should be better worded and more neutral. To be honest, most of reviews concerning pop-culture are trash (vaguely encyclopedic), therefore, main thing here is to prevent promotion, sensationalism and imbalance. Thank you for concern (I lack editing experience). Fakedeeps (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, if I missed anyone's creative contributions in my manual reverts, - we should get IP editor problem sorted.

@User:NinjaRobotPirate Ratings are great, might not be the most encyclopedic content, but at least it is objective now. Thank you for fixing my mistakes and improving formatting. There are some release date errors in tables too. Everyone's comments welcome - see User:NinjaRobotPirate/AdamGreen. @User:Amortias Your edits should not have been reverted (blame panicking fanatics and bypassers, unaware of historical article issues). Please check back soon - assistance of semi-administrator is exactly what we might need here.

I'll give this a look over later this week as have just got back from a week away. Amortias (T)(C) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on issues/suggestions (I am little informed on the subject and want to complete cleanup):

The Lead and Infobox

  • Full birth date is an important fact and, I think, belongs to every biographical article. Also it improves infobox functionality. Is there any reason for omitting it, here? BLP claims? Questionable truthfulness? Unverifiability?
  • Can we get formatting of 'Born' and 'Residence' fields synchronized? - for infobox, shorter is better. Are two letters (NY, MA, LA) unacceptable? Should they be within hyperlink?
  • How about using independent and/or low-budget in the lead? Is there any commonality, guideline? Should we propose/create one? - I mean if we had a policy requiring to clearly state film/filmmaker's rank in global industry, it would deter fanatics and advertisers from creating/rewriting pity articles. Also would improve overall balance and categorization.
  • Any other suggestions for lead?

Hatchets

  • "somewhat successful" seems as a very accurate and neutral description here.
  • "old school American horror" is a brief&informative description. If true, maybe it can be rephrased as not to imply citation? Actually, for consistency every film mentioned should have a description like this (personal PoV).
  • Can we have sourced sellout sentences back? - that's the only important information regarding Hatchet sequels. Here is even more reference: http://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/adam-green-updates-hatchet-3-chillerama-killer-pizza-and-more

Digging Marrow

CORRECTED
Despite the regular sensational comments by some horror sites: "best horror release of the year by far [...] one of the greatest frights in modern horror" (UK Horror Scene);[1] "tap[s] into primal fears you didn't even know existed" (Flick Feast);[2] - critical reception was poor. Maitland McDonagh of Film Journal International juxtaposes: "A meta-variation on Clive Barker's Nightbreed, Digging Up the Marrow tackles all the same questions - what makes a monster, are they good or bad, et al. - with considerably less grace and intelligence.";[3] and Wes Greene (Slant Magazine blog) concurs: "ultimately becomes the shopworn horror story that Green purports to upend with plenty of self-aware snark".[4]
CORRECTED
  • Probably to long for Green's article, but I promote this passage. Maybe it is incorporatable into Digging Up the Marrow? Reasons (Pros): (1) demonstrates audience/reviewers spectrum (2) effectively illustrates mixed reception of the film (3) refers to original movie (4) presents independent critical consensus (5) ends in neutral tone (6) is directly sourced (7) is relatively compact and fluent.

Removed production section describes Green's relation with (somewhat) mainstream industry and is good conclusion to the article. There are serious fan objections to credibility/verifiability (despite that the surmising sentence does not strictly imply negativity), however: chronological filmography supports this; two new TV series (aimed for monetization) failing at pilots are "pretty bad"; and there are sources cited, where Green talks about his negative experiences in the industry. For me seems completely legitimate to restore deleted section, but to be safe with BLP, I ask for second opinion and/or proofreading.

Fakedeeps (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally prefer not to include Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregator scores in biographies, but the previous version was unacceptable, as the article engaged in cherry picking and original research. Descriptions of his career should be properly sourced, neutral, and avoid synethesis. For an objective analysis, it's possible that there are retrospectives at Fangoria, Shock Till You Drop, Dread Central, or Bloody Disgusting, all of which are listed WP:FILM/R. I doubt the reliability of "UK Horror Scene" or "Flick Feast". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was under WP:SYNNOT (especially bottom sections) and not fully aware of WP:SYN scope. Neutral and objective, but some of my own statements are sort-of synthesis. If we do not have any more IPs/fanatic issues, I will proofread Career section once more and will try to clear-up references as advised. However, a complete rewrite, merging subsections and focusing on the subject of this article, is in order, which I am not willing, knowledgeable nor capable to undertake myself.
  • I am restoring descriptions at original Hatchet and press coverage at sequel subsections, because current information balance (regardless presence of official scores) does not make sense. If any argumented objections arise, we will have discussion and consensus here.
  • After fixing quotes (above), I still support passage for Digging Marrow, which does contain synthesis: a Appearance of first two sources as highly subjective. (as noted) b Implication that McDonagh and Greene present overall critical consensus. c Statement "critical reception was poor." Nevertheless, passage complies whith SYN, as there is no OR and a,b are verifiable (for example, citing review aggregator), while c could be (rewriten to be more-neutral, less-assertive and/or) supported by film ratings. Seems as somewhat good writing (contrast to low editorial value of sparse quotations), but it is rather long and I might be unaware of other issues here. Therefore, I leave decision for User:NinjaRobotPirate.
  • My sentence at Production subsection is unclear (it could be interpreted that Green ceased all other work to focus on the internet) and objects SYN BLP. I will check for better sources. How about clarification: "after involvement in failed television startups,ref started distributing his supplementary short videos and podcasts online:" ? This still contains slight cause-consequence implication and is less fluent, but (hopefully) prevents gross misinterpretation. Also, I am not strictly against omitting subsection completely, but that removes valuable information and impairs general article structure.
  • If no objections arise, I will probably try to optimize Lead&Infobox later and see the reactions afterwards.
Overall (outside BLP), if synthesis does not imply wrong, inaccurate, unverifiable or un-cited extraordinary claims - it is normal prose writing, editing practice. (NotPolicy, NotAll) In my opinion, highly important as such (more discriminate)WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fakedeeps (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Green (filmmaker). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Green_(filmmaker)&oldid=1200231496"