Talk:Constantine (film)/Archive 1

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

Language

What does "It also contains mild language, but not strong" mean? This sentence needs revision for style, and it also needs an explanation or a reference to what "language" means.

Synopsis

Synopsis is horribly done. It does not mention Constantine's assistants at all, nothing about the neutral club with the old man who has mysterious powers, nearly nothing about the Detective(the account makes it seem like the detective appeared, wanted to know whether her sister commited sucide, and thats it.....its a lot more than that). This is hardly an accurate account of the movie. -- Question2

I agree. I came here looking for more info about the film version of Chas Chandler. I -know- he has a huge backstory in the movie but it's not touched upon at all in this article. Lots42 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Max Payne

The similarity between the games, Max Payne and Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne with the film is quite startling. Even down to the hospital ward scenes, the street scenes, the retro bowling alley, the cough suppressant, the voice of Constantine, and the portrayal of Angela Dodson. I'm seriously wondering if a someone from the game design team was on the crew for the film (or the game designers were influenced by Hellblazer). I'm also curious if the film used the Havok physics engine, which was used in Max Payne 2 and The Matrix Reloaded. FWIW, Dan Cayer and Matt Jacobs, lead compositors for Constantine, worked on The Matrix Revolutions. --Viriditas | Talk 11:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:N ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Your reply above does not make any sense, so I can only speculate that you do not understand the links you are using. Based on your edits to the article, that appears to be true. We use talk pages to discuss how to improve an article, and my comments were perfectly acceptable and supported, as I clearly pointed out that the people involved in the film worked on another film that used the software. Based on your response, I'm guessing that you don't actually read the talk page - you just copy and paste links into replies. Seeing as you've done that throughout the page, it appears to be nonsensical spam and subject to removal. In the future, please try to respond directly to comments on the talk page rather than copying and pasting words you don't understand to a discussion thread from four years ago. Viriditas (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After the credits

If you stay after the credits, it'll reveal that Chaz (killed by an angel) is actually an angel. It was said in the film that God and the devil could not interact directly with the lives of humans but could use ‘influence’. So it can be said that Chaz was an angel sent by God to influence Constantine’s life to make the right decision.

Also, there is some speculation (as refered to briefly in this article) about whether Chas is taking the place of Gabreil as he is dressed as she is come the film's close; or whether that's how all angels dress. Since we see no angels other than Gabriel and Chas in the movie, there is no evidence to support either fact. -Captain Jack

If he were an angel both Constantine and Gabriel should have known (for continuity). more likely he was transformed into an angel after his death (whether or not he replaced Gabriel). Theoretically, we do see other angels (in Midnight's club), though it is uncertain if "half breeds" count for the discussion. Then again, Gabriel also wore a buisness suit (when meeting with the bishop?), so lacking further information the scene could mean anything.Darker Dreams 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1) WP:NOTAFORUM
2) It was made quite clear that Chaz became an angel post-mortem. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You are responding to a comment made three years ago, so there is no need to warn a user about "NOTAFORUM". Furthermore, the comments are helpful and describe additional material that can be added to the article, and the user comments directly about the article. It is not helpful for you to spam "NOTAFORUM" to perfectly acceptable talk comments that are meant to help improve this article, especially from comments made three years ago. If you need help on how to use talk page, you may use {{help}} at any time on your talk page, and someone will arrive to give you some tips. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Article

Expansion of plot

does anyone object to expanding the plot, it seems lacking in its current state RyanM651 (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No production or reception sections?

I notice that while there are sections covering the different types of demons in the film as well as the nifty occult toys, there is no production section, and there is no reception section. These are both needed in order to prevent the article from being seen as some odd fan-gushing. The aforementioned 'demons' and 'weapons' sections have been removed, as they are significantly in-universe, and appear nowhere outside the purview of the film. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

Will someone PLEASE expand on this article? Honestly, you can find out more about this movie from the IMDB than on here.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
Some people either don't want to or don't feel capable of doing it themselves, though. (Not me, no, not at all... *shifty-eyes*) CameoAppearance 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Added-

I added the vermin demon in the demon section, and also put the Amityville Screech Beetle in the weapons section. The "holy light" John uses against scavenger demons, by the way, is revealed in the game to be part of Moses' shroud, but I didn't put this in as it isn't named in the film. Would it be acceptable to put it in, and then put the game as a reference? 81.103.167.237 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't, the movie is -the- movie. Unless it's like Joss Whedon, who designantes non-tv stuff as canon, it doesn't seem like it should be added. Lots42 02:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Moses' shroud should be added. It is revealed on the DVD extras that the cloth is part of Moses' shroud; the scene where Beeman brings Constantine his new toys was originally supposed to be longer and include this explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.111.239 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Movie Poster

I've taken a look at the source for this page and I don't know what's wrong with the movie poster. Whoever put it up made it come out twice, it seems. Can anyone fix this? JHMM13 (T | C) 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems fixed. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Constantine Poster.jpg

Image:Constantine Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Constantine ver2.jpg

Image:Constantine ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel

Why is Gabriel female? This confuses me as much as naming an angel after a Norse god in Dogma.

1. Gabriel is also a Judeo-Christian angel 2. Angels do not have a sex. That is why in the movie Gabriel looks so much like a feminised man. So Gabriel is not a woman and not a man.

And (I'm not sure about this, but thought I'd mention it) I think the Bible presents angels as being a completely different creature than mankind, ergo not necessarily bound by the human concept of different sexes. Alternately, making Gabriel female could be an smirking slap at the basic concepts of Christianity in which the male figure is often the major figure to the exclussion of the female. (because technically, the Bible never says anything about whether or not angels are male or female, but most people assume that they are male) --Silvermoonburn 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple answer? Because it's just a bloody film, not Ye Worde of God(TM) dictated from up on high. The writers of the script are bound to take some artistic license with biblical apocrypha... Gods know they took a HUGE amount of artistic license with the source material Hellblazer Robrecht 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Alternate Answer: In the bible as well as several other sources Gabriel is reffered to as the only female Archangel. Thus, it would make sense that Gabriel is female.--LetMeStandAlone 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

also, I'm not sure if they had any specific actors or actresses in mind when they were writing the part of Gabriel but if they had been thinking of the actress in the film (Tilda Swinton, also the White Witch in "Narnia"), then they may have simply written the part for Swinton directly, and made Gabriel female becuase it fitted with their choice of actor. -Captain Jack

I don't recall it saying anywhere that it is THE archangel. Hell, even Constantine calls her(it) a halfbreed. If it was really the archangel, it would violate the "rules" or whatever and certainly Lucifer would know. Am I the only one of the opinion that Gabriel is just a coincidence and nothing more? Tim 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall, from some obscure interview with the director or writer or producer, Swinton was cast and made up to portray Gabriel as androgynous, which is why she wears modest makeup and dresses in men's suits. Imacphee (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the end of the film, Gabriel becomes human. She is clearly shown as a female human, so it makes sense to refer to her as such within the bounds of this film. 71.58.243.37 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Being turned human is not the same as being female all through the film. Lots42 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence one way? Maybe

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/constan2.php

Tilda talks about Gabriel as a 'woman'. Food for thought. Lots42 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

One last time re: Gabriel to whom it may concern

To Whom It May Concern: Gabriel is whatever gender the MOVIE says Gabriel is. If in fact, the movie says so. This will be my last comment on the topic. Lots42 (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel

I see there's still a problem over Gabby's gender. Lots42 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And the fight is still going. Can we PLEASE decide on a gender for Gabriel and quit this nonsense? Lots42 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
More then a month later, the fight continues. YEESH. Lots42 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

NO. Angels don't reproduce sexually. They simply exist. Gender is not an issue. Only animals reproduce sexually, and angels, demons, gods and devils are not animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It only matters what the -movie- says. IF the movie says Gabriel is male, that is what the article should say. Lots42 (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


But the character Gabriel in the film is one of those 'half-breeds' that live on earth in human form, therefore it would have a gender.. or at least assume one >.> 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.22.98 (talk)


Gabriel is described in the film and in the novelization as being Androgynous. Therefore, without a specific gender. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Possessed Girl

Sorry dude, but I suggest a look at WP:N ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Notability has nothing to do with his comment. If anything, the information might be considered trivial. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interview link

Is the link to the Jamie Delano interview relevant at all to this article?

It doesn't discuss the movie in any way, shape, or form. It hardly even mentions the comic except in passing.--MythicFox 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Here's a tidbit to track down, something I was told by one of the producers so perhaps there's an outside source for it somewhere: the film was shot in an attempt to get a PG-13 rating. That is why there is almost no gore and very little profanity. Yet, the MPAA gave them an R rating.

When the producers asked why, they were told that it was because they had "demons" in the film. They pointed out that the Lord of the Rings films had trolls and orcs in them, to which the person at the MPAA replied, "Yes, but those aren't real." He wasn't kidding. RoyBatty42 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the pun, but speaking as a devil's advocate, millions and millions of people -do- believe that demons are real, not as many believe in orcs and trolls. And even after just watching the edited FX channel version, I find it hard to believe they were going for PG-13. A guy gets murdered by an angel, there's drownings and scenes of thousands of souls in torment and a priest kills himself with booze. Lots42 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
1) WP:NOTAFORUM, 2) Films featuring demonic imagery, especially in a half-realistic sense (Lord of the Rings is classified as pure Science Fiction and Fantasy) are automatically given a rating of R by default. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop responding to comments with boilerplate links that you don't understand. The discussion about ratings is perfectly acceptable and remains an open topic, as your response did not even begin to address it. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

In the differences section it mentions that he was sentenced to hell for a successful suicide, but as he is still alive does that not mean his attempt was unsuccessful? Stewiechewie 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Well his suicide was successful, and he went to hell. He was revived and has been trying to not go back to hell, which is why he was trying to buy his way into heaven by exorcising demons. JoeyFNK 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But as he was revived his suicide attempt was unsuccessful, he tried to end his life but is still alive Ssm777 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say, Constantine deserved hell for taking a (his own) life, and then he was offered a substitional new deal for that life-time-hell-sentence (i. e. being un-selfish a lot)... This "new deal" makes sense, because his suicide attempt was immediately caused by the malfunctioning genesis (idiotic psychiatrists, silly parents, insane government; which was not caused by him)... :-) Just my 2 pennies... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please to be reading; WP:NOTAFORUM Lots42 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Midnight/Chaz / german version

Hi! In the german version Midnite said before he said a prayer for Chaz, that Constantine shall kill Chaz after he helped him... Is that translation wrong? If not: What does it mean? Why should Chaz die? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing such but the answer is yes. The quote was "Take him John. Kill him after". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapons

Do we need the weapons section? Lots42 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems kinda pointless(Predator106) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.133.203 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to know more about the auto-gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.172.86 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the weapons used in the film were portrayed as a major plot point, yes it is important. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how. John pulls some weapons out to fight adversaries. That's all the detail we need. Lots42 (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Divine Intervention

The article says John asks for divine intervention and doesn't receive it. This should be changed to say he doesn't receive it DIRECTLY. Watch the entire scene with the devil. In the end, John gets what he wants, Gabriel is stopped, Mammon returns to Hell, the sister's soul goes to Heaven, and his cancer is gone. If that isn't divine intervention, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comma Splices

The comma splices make this article harder to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.172.86 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Assessment

Per a request at the Assessment department (sorry for the delay), I'm reviewing the article to determine if it meets the B-class criteria. The article needs to be expanded, and the plot significantly cut down (it should be more than 700 words). A lot of the screenshots in the article are decorative and should be removed (the Hell screenshot can probably stay). Try to add details about critical reception, soundtrack, production, etc. If you have questions about any of these, let me know. Once the above issues have been addressed, please renominate. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and suggestions. I'll get underway in making those additions. I've already created a soundtrack section. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You can start by deleting the original research you added in the "hell" section. You need sources that actually support these statements, including comparisons between the novel and the film. You can't just refer to the book and the film as sources. The source you use must make the comparison. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would I delete canonical material that, albeit poorly sourced with a first party reference, is factually sourced and not original research, as you so claim. Instead of attempting to pick apart every one of my edits and responding to every single FACTUAL statement I made previously on this talk page, why don't you actually try improving the article instead of being asinine about actual good faith edits?
What I placed in was supported with a source. Fact. What I said above on the talk page was not disruptive but was... Fact. So my plot write up was rather lengthy. It was tagged as such. Another user came along and decided that it would be better to expand it (which I tried to do in good faith) instead of trimming it down. However, he didn't run to every single post I made on this talk page and start commenting on it nor start calling everyone a troll left and right, now did he? No. If anyone is trolling here, by literal definition, it is yourself. I'm stopping just short of pointing to Wikimedia and pulling out "DBAD". Actually do something to help the article and stop calling anyone who tries to improve it a troll or "article destroyer".
We all have shortcomings. So I tried to edit an article to be better and I made mistakes in doing so. But I put time into it. I put legitimately sourced research into it. None of it was incorrect. It's only mis-giving was that it was too long. But I destroyed the article because of that? No. I call that improvement. If you took a moment to step back and assume good faith for once, you might realize that. I will leave you with some food for thought in the form of a quote I once heard, "The man with the willingness to rectify something is the man with the right to criticize". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about your shortcomings in this thread. I'm only talking about the "hell" section. I don't see any sources that currently support it. If you want to refer to the DVD commentary, you need to get more specific, because it isn't clear exactly what you are talking about. So, let's start there. In the DVD commentary, are you referring to the words of the director, the writer, or what? And what are they talking about? Is it the story, the design, the production, etc? Get specific and I'll help you source it myself. What we have now, doesn't work. The purpose of using sources is to allow anyone to verify the information. That cannot be done with the information you've provided, and none of the sources offered so far, compare the book and the film. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel's Gender-Neutral Role

I feel that due to the back and forth editing on this topic, that this needs to be settled immediately.

Let it be established and known that Gabriel, the angel as depicted in the film, is NOT Female nor is Gabriel Male. Gabriel is a purely androgynous figure. Gabriel is also NOT the same as the Arch-Angel Gabriel as depicted in The Bible.

This has been established over a number of mediums including the film, the novelization, as well as multiple reviewers as well as observers, a few of which I will line up right now:

  • "Gabriel, an androgynous, "half-breed" angel (Tilda Swinton), is less than angelic." - Christianity Today
  • "Swinton plays Gabriel in an androgynous mode, presumably because angels are neither male nor female. But the demons played by human actors, including Balthazar (rocker Gavin Rossdale of Bush) and Satan himself (Peter Stormare), aren’t androgynous, but unambiguously male." - Decent Films Guide
  • "This time, however, the bad guy isn't Agent Smith but the son of the Devil - and he's hell-bent on breaking a pact between God and Satan not to allow angels and demons into the world of human beings. And the angel Gabriel (androgynous Tilda Swinton) seems to be in on the plot as well." - LA Splash
  • "Tilda Swinton plays Gabriel, a goofy, androgynous, half-breed angel." - DVD Town
  • "...to solve the mysterious death of her twin sister, a quest that will take both of them to hell and back and will involve the angel Gabriel (an androgynous Tilda Swinton) and Lucifer himself..." - Future Movies
  • " As the androgynous Angel Gabriel (a nifty Tilda Swinton) tells Constantine..." - Rolling Stone
  • "But the best role is played by the exceptional actress Tilda Swinton, who portrays an androgynous angel Gabriel, God's gatekeeper on Earth. She has a grudge against Constantine regarding his efforts to buy his way back into God's good graces. Her scenes with Reeves are the most interesting in the film." - CNN Entertainment

I'll even point you to the exact point in which the book describes Gabriel: Page 69, Shirley, John (25 January 2005), Constantine (Mass Market Paperback), Pocket Star, ISBN 0743497554 - "The semblance wore a cream-colored Armani suit... Pretilly pale, startling green eyes. Body as feminine as masculine. An androgyne. Constantine knew that this androgynous..."

What do all these have in common? Not one mentions Gabriel as an "Arch-Angel" nor does anyone mention Gabriel as male or female. They all mention Gabriel as Androgynous, or Gender-Neutral.

The problem here is that everyone seems to be ignoring the views as portrayed in the film and inserting their own. The biggest example of this came most recently from this edit: "Gabriel, while played by a woman to make him androgynous, is male. All angels depicted in scripture, including Gabriel, are male."

What the bible depicts and what the film depicts are two different things. Generically, we would refer to this as Artistic license, but granted the situation in that covers a biblical figure, we could also interpret it as just another interpretation of the work which is quite clearly what was made by the user of the above edit.

Hopefully this clears things up and ends the back and forth. Please feel free to refer to this if necessary. If anyone would like to discuss this, please do so here but let us keep the edit war out of it. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 04:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Party (3rd Opinion) Request

As I'm sure is obvious from the history of the article, the past few edits between myself and the user, User:Undead penguin have been not much more than a back and forth series of "edit, revert, edit, revert...". I would like to explain my reasoning for my reversions, while hopefully giving Undead penguin a chance to explain theirs. I also seek the assistance of a neutral third party in accordance with the wikipedia policy of Dispute Resolution.

I'll begin with a basic synopsis: The dispute in question is in relation to the plot of the Constantine article which has seen many issues since this articles inception. With regards to this, the size of the plot section has seen variable change, leading to expansion, compaction, and subsequent re-expansion to encompass more detail fitting with the outlined manual of style of a good films article within the scope of WP:FILMS as well as the numerous film projects which this film is within the scope of including but not limited to those listed at the top of this talk page. It has been observed that the section was appropriately expanded, then cleaned up to match such. Now I personally felt that the section in question was adequate as it was and, with the exception of some minor compaction and cleanup, focus needed to be shifted over to other parts of the article such as the production, reception, and lead section.

However, based on observations of their edits, it can be inferred that the user User:Undead penguin believes differently and [believes that not only am I trying to own this article, something I have adamantly refuted] but that it is inherently too long and redundant. I disagree, personally, citing Manual of Style for Films (including the names of the actors next to the first mention of a character, something which has been removed by Undead penguin), as well as the destruction of sentence structure and grammar which has been seen quite clearly through the edit history and the current state of the article which I have reverted because it simply is not accurate not does it fit. Now, when it comes to Film plots, it has long been established that sometimes, we must ignore all rules and be bold, a practice which I have long attempted to follow, but when you take an essential plot point such as Constantine's exorcisms of demons for personal gain - a point which was reiterated quite adamantly throughout the entire film, or remove other points which are essential to the character description in addition to points necessary to the plot (Constantine's ability to see ghost or the fact that he had previously exorcised a demon that very day, for example).

With that said, I have - as previously stated - reverted the article once more to its condition prior to the edits of Undead penguin, as although I understand that these are good faith edits (the user is also trying to improve the article), I cannot in good conscience let it stay in that condition. The floor is, of course, open to further discussion by the involved party and one or more intermediary parties as is necessary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki's own policy says 400-700 for films. Not only that much of it is redundant and could easily be removed or shotned. Also much of it is inacquarte. Constantine is never mentioned to see ghosts, he intends to use Angela as a portal to Earth, not as his body, as is referenced more then once. The term Spear of Destiny is used more then once, when it could be shortened to the Spear. Mentioning the bouncer and destroying the door to Midnite's club is of no importance to the article, as wiki isnt meant to say every detail in the movie. "In return for informing Lucifer of Mammon's plans, Constantine asks that Isabel be released from Hell to go to Heaven in return for his soul, a request which Lucifer happily obliges. As Lucifer drags Constantine to Hell, Heaven appears before him. By performing the act of self-sacrifice (giving his life for that of Isabel's), Constantine has redeemed his own soul of the previous mortal sin, and he may enter Heaven". Repeatedly it is mentioned about his sacrifice for her when it could easily be mentioned only a once. His happily obligin is of little importance. I could keep going on all day, but you wouldnt care. You are trying to own the article because if you werent you would, when cornered with wiki's own guidelines, stop reverting and lengthening the article, but ur not.Undead penguin (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
While I don't appreciate your accusations, they are not the point. The guideline for word limit is just that, a guideline. Not a rule. The plot for The Matrix is considerably longer than that of what was posted previously. Perhaps the plot for Enter the Dragon is too long? V For Vendetta? Planet Terror? I won't even mention Pulp Fiction. Additionally, you say Constantine is never mentioned to see ghosts, however if you check the history of the comic of Hellblazer, that which Constantine was based off of; or if you check the references on the page, you will see that he was mentioned to see ghost, and it is properly cited as such. Additionally, where was it stated they intended to use Constantine as the portal? I'll point out the exact sentence you are in reference too: "Angela is kidnapped to be used as the vessel for Mammon...". Not once in that statement did it say Constantine was to be the vessel. You are correct, Wikipedia is not meant for every detail from the movie, which is exactly what I was burned for with regards to this edit, but we are looking for a Plot here, not a Premise. I will also once again point out the numerous spelling and grammatical errors within the article which drive down the article quality significantly. The missing information which was removed also violates the manual of style. Removing an actor's name from the character is just unsightly, especially when every other character has the actor's name next to it. The "Spear of Destiny" is a proper name, or a noun, if you will. Shortening it to "The Spear" significantly reduces its importance within the scope of the film. Additionally, Lucifer's happily obliging the request of a man he holds such a high regard of disdain for is important to the plot simply because it puts things in perspective and if one checks the sources or observes the film, one would see the same for themselves. That said, to address your accusations, I take your insinuation that I am trying to own this article or that I don't care to be insulting and nothing more than a personal attack. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering u didnt pay attention to any of my argument, why should i respond. but i will. i never said constantine is mammon's portal. it is said in the movie, angela is. 1) bc u have a demon in the begining trying to force its way out of a child, and oh idk, mammon was trying to do that with angela at the end of the movie. not only that, um the movie completely changed much of the base story of constantine, and in it, yes he can see ghosts, but in the movie, he says he can see demons and angels, NOT GHOSTS. also, i didnt read those articles you mention, but to fit guidelines, yes they should be cut down plus this article is too long anyway even without guidelines. not only that, i didnt remove actors names, i only removed redundant statments. it is clear that you are not even paying attention to what details are removed and only upset because i am changing something in a way you do not like, which i find petty and insulting. also the movie refers to it as the Spear repeatedly and only say The Spear of Destiny twice. why would someone in their right mind keep saying the full name over and over again. shortening it to the spear, sense its already established what it is, does in no way reduce its significance, it just saves space and time in reading. not only that but, it is refered to as the spear repeatedly in the movie. also considering the grammarical mistakes that were in there before i even touched it, mentioning my changing of grammar that i constantly improve on when i make a mistake, is hypocritcal. Undead penguin (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:
Here are a few suggestions for resolving the dispute on the article:
  1. Both Undead penguin and Evilgohan2 should take a break from editing the plot section, and allow a consensus to develop on this talk page as to what changes need to be made. The article history has all the hallmarks of an incipient edit war.
  2. The summary is too long as it stands. Per WP:FILMPLOT, it should be 400–700 words. Other films that violate the guideline are not relevant; Pulp Fiction is explicitly mentioned on the guideline page as an exception. If anyone thinks the guideline is unreasonable, s/he should discuss changing the guideline on its talk page, and come here and report once consensus has been reached there.
  3. Regarding the interpretation of the length guideline: it is not a matter of seeing how much information can be crammed into 700 words, but rather that the target is somewhere in that range. A plot summary of 500 words can be perfectly acceptable, and if it captures the same relevant information it is in fact better than one of 700 words. As an exercise, why don't you both try drafting a version of the plot summary (in your userspace) that is as short as possible, while still conveying all the pertinent information. Make the target 550 words (halfway between 400 and 700) If this is successful, we can form a consensus to replace the current plot summary with the new one.
  4. Both Undead penguin's and Evilgohan2's preferred version of the summary need to be edited for concision and style. Perhaps someone can be found at WP:FILM to go over it (I'd do it but I haven't seen the movie). Alternately, the copyedit could go over the userspace draft I propose above, once it is finished.

I'd like to hear from both of you regarding these questions:

  1. Do you agree to stop edit warring over the article until consensus, driven by outside editors, develops here as to what needs to be done?
  2. Will you participate in creating an new draft in user space?—— ækTalk 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indeed the plot section is too long and convoluted. It is meant to be a synopsis of the story, not a blow by blow account. I echo User:Æk's comments - take a break. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: After comparing both summaries, I believe that overall, Undead penguin's version is the better and should remain on the article. Factual accuracy (something that needs to be discussed) aside, Undead penguin has the right idea in terms of copyediting and removing detail that is not necessary to understanding the film's plot. That said, it needs more work. - kollision (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia Items.

I'm opening this topic as a repository for trivia in case a trivia section is ever added. As it's inaugural item, I believe the Spear of Destiny prop used in this movie is patterned after the Hofburg Spear, which is pictured in the Wikipedia article about The Holy Lance. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legionaireb (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Always make sure what you post is verifiable and properly sourced. Additionally, do not forget that trivia sections and list of miscellaneous items are generally discouraged as they tend to become cumbersome in addition to detracting from the overall quality of the article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 04:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just an added point I forgot to make mention of: If you so wish, and if the information can be properly integrated into the plot, then please don't hesitate to add it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constantine_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1131105686"