Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:31, 20 February 2007

Children of Men has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

Film GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has an archived peer review.

Archives
July 2006 — January 29, 2007 January 29, 2007 — February 18, 2007

Another Citation Problem

From the Themes section: "According to Cuarón, the title of P.D. James' book (The Children of Men) is a Catholic allegory derived from a bible quote". The citation appears int he reference section as #33. However, that appears to be empty (the cite simply refering to 'Metroactive'). Maybe this refers to a source I could not find. In all of the references listed (and some of them appear to be dead or unrelated), I could not find a single reference to the word 'allegory' in any of them. Maybe I missed it. If someone could point it out, that would be great. I wouldn't presume to remove the word until the link issue is squared away.Arcayne 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the "Metroactive" link. The original reference was earlier in the Themes section a few dozen revisions ago, but it was replaced with something else. I've brought it back in. Please point out anything that seems dead or nonworking, and I'll see if I can fix them. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. Excellent, expeditious work! I will check through the references today whilst at work.Arcayne 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast section removal

There used to be a section that listed the principal cast members, but it seems to be gone now. I was merely wondering if there was a reason for its removal, or if it will be reinstated? Just curious; I wanted to check on a certain minor actor, but was too lazy to nip over to IMDb. That'll show me, heh. María: (habla ~ cosas) 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the removal because the primary characters were already embedded in the Plot section. Most FA-class film articles don't really have a cast list, with the exception of franchise films (whose characters have their own articles) and something like Dog Day Afternoon. It didn't seem necessary to list all the minor characters, as it has little encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like a list either, but we have enough cast content in the production section to move it to its own prose section. —Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a likely solution. I was looking for a reference to Charlie Hunnam, who plays Patric, and although he's not a major character, I think those who have seen the film would agree that he plays a very important part in the story as a whole. However, he isn't mentioned in the plot or production section --which makes sense for space constraint. I'm sure there are others in the cast who fall into the same category and deserve at least a mention. PS: good to see you're still fighting the good fight, Viriditas. :) María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Children of Men/Temp could be used to develop the cast section. I will import the content. —Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite template question

I'd like to get a consensus for this article regarding something. With the Cite news and Cite web templates, the author can be filled out in two ways. One is with the author= attribute. The other is with the first= and last= attributes. The latter will format it to be "Smith, John", where author= formats it as "John Smith". I'd like to standardize the templates for the references in this article, and I would prefer to use the author= attribute. I say this because when it comes to using the coauthors= attribute, the format seems confusing. For example, first=John | last=Smith | coauthors=Jane Doe will produce Smith, John, Jane Doe, and formatting it as first=John | last=Smith | coauthors=Doe, Jane will produce Smith, John, Doe, Jane, which is too confusing. (By the way, first= and last= attributes can be used interchangeably and still produce "last, first".) Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still learning about scripting and templates, so I yield to your superior knowledge on the subject.Arcayne 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just that author=John Smith | coauthors=Jane Doe produces John Smith, Jane Doe, which is more easily read than what I mentioned before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to see last names first, as that is helpful when doing research, looking at sources, and using standard citation guidelines. I don't think the coauthor format is confusing, and is rarely used in film articles due to the nature of reviews and commentary. —Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Childhood's End Reference

I have ported over an uncited post that I removed from the article (placed in the Themes section). It doesn't appear to be nonsense or vandalism, and I thought it would be okay to put it here, until User:Ppayne can properly cite the reference. I am not as familiar with this Clarke work.

Added by User:Ppayne)

The story has strong simitarities to Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End, a novel about mankind going on to a higher plane of evolution, resulting in the end of fertility in the current generation of humans.

-Arcayne 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I Googled briefly for a connection between the two, but couldn't find any sources outside of comparisons made in forums. Maybe someone else would have better luck. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i did, too. No luck. Of course, Ppayne might have something more than observation to back up his post, so I figured we'd give the lad/lass a chance to square it away, proper-like. (he said, feeling all piratey).Arcayne 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference between movie and film?

Wasn't there a section about the difference between the two works? Why was it removed? --72.202.150.92 17:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The differences have been worked into other sections, such as the first paragraph of the Themes section. Seeing as the director did not intend to adapt anything but the premise from the novel, it's needless to create a section to compare the two sources. Hope that's understandable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Arcayne, could you please read WP:LEAD? You seem to be editing in a disruptive manner again. I added a third paragraph according to WP:LEAD and you removed it with the edit summary, "rm OR, redundant info - better referred to in Production and Reception areas, with citation." You also added a small non-notable detail that does not appear in the article. The sense of realism is the most noteworthy aspect of the film, and seems to be the consensus of the reviews in the article and in general. This realism was made possible with production techniques explained in the article. There is no original research, here. —Viriditas | Talk 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you could have done just as well to leave out "editing in a disruptive manner again". Every editor has something to learn, and the dredging is unnecessary. I'm sure when he reviews WP:LEAD, he'll understand how the lead paragraphs are supposed to be constructed -- as a concise overview of the article itself. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne's tendentious editing behavior and penchant for revert wars is the epitome of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. —Viriditas | Talk 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am editing to make the peace better. In every instance where you have carried on for days, breaking 3RR seeminglyu at will, when a consensus has been reached within the article, I have gone with the group. When I have been wrong, I have admitted so. Every time I make an edit, you take special care to endlessly revert my text, most recently - text that you asked for help on. You talk about edit wars and trolls, but you are the only one consistently reverting my text, and you are the one continually using uncivil language. You don't seem to listen to editors asking you to stand down and work with others, and you don't respect their opinions enough to wait for an outside opinion. Those are warning bells, sir. What is it going to take to get you to stop being so abrasive? Arcayne 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the absurd, disruptive behavior and wild claims. Edit warring does not "make the peace better". Use the talk page to justify your reverts. —Viriditas | Talk 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:LEAD, and created the better beginnings of a lead paragraph than were there before. I have no problem with him adding to what I've put there, and I encourage you to please learn to share your toys.Arcayne 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You reverted a paragraph that summarizes notable aspects of the article per WP:LEAD and replaced it with one that doesn't. You added an absurd edit summary asking me to work with others, while writing "I have no problem with him adding to what I've put there" above. Arcayne, I view your behavior as disruptive. Please stop edit warring over Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and help contribute to the improvement of this article. —Viriditas | Talk 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am doing - contributing to the article. Simply because you do not agree with what others add to the article doesn't make them wrong, or trollish, or edit warriors. No one else has been able to add a single thing to the article without you reverting it at least once. An edit war is started by more than one person. Please stop being a flash point. I am done arguing with you. Please do not address me again.Arcayne 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop it — both of you. What's past is past. You've both argued your cases literally dozens of times, and you're not going to get anywhere. Focus on the task at hand. The tension does not help in the editing process at all. Let bygones be bygones. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about the past anymore. I am focusing on the article as it is now.Arcayne 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If either of you persist on making any further comments toward each other, I will revert. This talk page is meant to discuss how to improve the respective article. Don't try to have the last word — no one cares, least of all me. If you want to debate each other's merits, find another forum to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing the current edits made by Arcayne. He removed my summation of the facts in the article and replaced it with his pet theory of the "shantih", couched in terms of, "maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film." That statement is not supported and is original research. —Viriditas | Talk 21:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're back in topic, I concur with Viriditas about mention of the film's conclusion not belonging in the lead. We are supposed to take the entire content of the article and summarize it into at most three lead paragraphs (which is the maximum I've seen for all FA-class film articles). The ending is not as pertinent as the other themes presented in the film. Overall topics should be mentioned -- religion, anti-authority, and what-have-you. In addition, I removed the Scriptor Award mention because the article does not mention the win for the camera work, but rather the adapted screenplay. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I suggest that if we are going to summarize the reception of the film, then we should expand the Reception section with further detail. The section should lean away from themes because many of these have already been addressed in the appropriate section. However, opinions on whether or not the themes were too heavy, or if the cinematography was over the top, should be mentioned. I'm not an expert on writing Reception sections, but I think we should aim for a balance, mostly toward the positive end due to how the film has been received overall based on Rotten Tomatoes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually adressing the Shantih stuff with the lead. I was referring to cited commentary that discusses how the movie was contructed. Specifically, I drew upon the following:

• "Watch for the scene at the end that points the way." (here)
• "At one point in Children of Men, Miriam comments how the voices of children are what keep the world from tipping into self-destruction. That sentiment is borne out precisely and perfectly in Cuarón's final scenes." (and here)

The point I was illustrating in the improved lead sentences refers to both reviewers' beliefs (not mine) that from opening shot until the lights come up, Cuaron was still creating a movie. The Shantih is not part of this (and isn't going to be mentioned by me again until some reviewer says something about it); after the independent reviewer weighed in with his measured opinion, I respected it and the matter was set aside as far as I was concerned. Not once did I bring it up again, and am not going to discuss it again. As the lead paragraphs are supposed to give an overview of the article, the statement I added, "maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film" is truthful, and noting the thematic, religious (and allegorical) issues presented by the film. As this statement is drawn from cited (and immediately available sources) and is indeed an overview of the thematic components of the film, I think they contribute to the article.Arcayne 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is not included in the article, so it cannot qualify as part of the overview until it is so. You're supposed to reference what's already in the article to put together lead paragraphs. So if you included the thematic statements in the Themes section, then it may be appropriate to reference what you had earlier. With three lead paragraphs, though, space is somewhat tight; hence some discussion as to what should be covered in the lead. (So much for retiring for the night.) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I can work up something in Themes about it tonight or early tomorrow. Any idea where I should insert the info about it? I think that the proposed Lead statement mentioned above is general enough to act as overview without getting into specifics. The specifics will go into the Themes section. I also wanted to mention that I used the word slightly to describe in an overall way how - as detailed in the production section, the film was an anti-BladeRunner, in that the tech was just slightly paying a nod to the future, while maintaining the here and now. Sorry if that was somehow confusing.Arcayne 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You could have a paragraph before the "Shantih" one that describes children as a theme (use this citation, too, for added detail) and end with the laughing children being a relevant observation, then the next paragraph, the "Shantih" paragraph, would wrap up the thematic ending that the director provided. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll work at wrapping it up with a nice bow.Arcayne 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Themes

I've kind of copy-edited your addition in a major way; hope you don't mind. Hope is already mentioned as a theme at the beginning of the section, so I re-worded it to suggest that the following content would build on the aforementioned theme. Also, you were redundant in saying "comments" twice about the voices of children reference, so I re-worded that as well. I also tried to mesh in what the Brussat reviewers said, but I think that could be edited better. I also applied the Cite news template to the references that you provided so they show up in detail in the References section. Let me know if any of my edits were unsatisfactory. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing this citation, I'm not comfortable with the vague mention of the ending -- it could either be the voices of children or the Shantih reference. Maybe it could be re-worded as some kind of transition between the children and Shantih themes, but it seems like OR to surmise what the reviewers actually mean when they say, "Watch for the scene at the end that points the way." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the review wasn't written as tightly as it could have been. I think the meaning turns on the preceding sentences from the quote:

"Yet deep in the hearts of these immigrants, as in the hearts of the English citizens who hate them and the paramilitary police who torment them, is the same yearning: to see life continue and flourish. Watch for the scene at the end that points the way.

I think that the use of the words, "deep in the hearts...is the yearning to see life continue and flourish" indicates that the citation more aptly refers to the prayer. That the laughter of the children has significance to Cuaron as a symbol of hope I think melds the two. I don't think that needs to be mentioned, of course; just stating the two in proximity demonstrates the correlation between the two without saying so, and neatly sidesteps consideration of ORArcayne 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Erik, your reworking of the added themes statement is pretty good there. :) Arcayne 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this citation could be used in the Reception section instead. While the Themes section does consist of reviewers' observations, I think they're comparatively definite observations compared to this citation in question. I'll stare at the paragraph a good while and see if it can be re-inserted in a different context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that Reception is a good place for it, as that area refers mostly to critical response (positive or negative) and box office returns and the like. As the comment refers to the relative thematic import of Cuaron's "message", it should probably stay in Themes.Arcayne 16:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I take that back. I understand the implication of the statement, but it's tricky to determine where the reference could go instead, being ambiguous in nature. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the ambiguity as well, but I think that interpreting it based on the context in which it is presented frees us from overthinking it.Arcayne 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, we just need to determine a place for it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted your recent edit because quite simply, laughter isn't mentioned in that particular citation. It was more of an overall theme of children, with more connections than just the final scene (Nativity Story, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that last part a bit more? I am not sure i understand what you mean.Arcayne 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to this. The citation does not specifically mention the laughter of children, and your edit had indicated otherwise. I think that the reference is broader, such as being in reference to Kee's child being significant in the film. I think the way it is fine; it mentions the overall children theme, then specifies a lesser instance (the laughter aspect at the end) to support that theme. I don't think it's necessary to include further citation to indicate how Kee's child ties into the director's "children" theme; that was pretty much a major point in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean; I had alluded to it incorrectly. I don't see the instance of "lesser instance (the laughter aspect at the end" though. I think that the observation of the laughter ties the statements together.Arcayne 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Themes in the lead

Viriditas, surely you don't want to exclude themes from the lead paragraphs. What is the problem with the wording? It summarizes the Themes section, addressing the spiritual and metaphorical aspects. How do you think themes should be addressed in the lead? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I think needs to be done is separate the notings of the themes and the praise, because the praise has yet to be covered in the Reception section. I think that some copy-editing could be done to describe neutrally the cinematography and the themes of the film, and when we develop the Reception section, we can say whether the majority of critics liked it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about using noted in place of praised?Arcayne 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Content removed

Arcayne removed the following content with the claim of original research:

Critics found Children of Men noteworthy for its heightened sense of realism, made possible with long, extended takes shot with a handheld camera and post-production techniques which joined the takes together.

As I see it, this content is an accurate (but incomplete) summary of the production and theme sections per WP:LEAD. It needs expansion. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that joining stuff, was there ever any sort of confirmation that the longer shots were faked (I think the one suspected of such was the running ginfight through Bexhill). I know there was the one report, but did that ever bear any fruit?Arcayne 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As you already know, Alain Bielik discussed this with Double Negative and published it in VFX World. The long shots are blended together from other extended takes to make them even longer. It's a technical detail. This is why writers like Jim Ridley have observed, "almost everyone who's written about Children of Men has talked about use of long, unbroken takes..." It's one of the most noteworthy aspects of the film, and it's discussed in technical detail in the production section, and in thematic detail in the themes section, and belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. Cuarón and Lubezki purposefully set out to use long shots to "give a balance between character and social environment," allowing characters to "blend" into the shot itself. Cuarón describes the principle behind the long takes: "We would try to create a moment of truthfulness in which the camera would be there just to register that moment of truthfulness." The vfx department simply smoothed over the rough edges, making the long shots appear longer with seamless transitions, making the impossible, possible. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That clears it up for me. Thanks for the lowdown. Might be a good idea to actually see this movie based on all these merits... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Critic Nate Loomis wrote: "Though Children of Men is heavily stylized, it is the film's realism that is most stunning." Critic Skip Sheffield also said: "Much of 'Children' is shot with hand-held camera to give it newsreel realism." —Viriditas | Talk 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis v. Plot

This has been going back and forth for a bit, with a lot of new users changing it back to plot, I am thinking that it might be advisable to perhaps change it to plot synopsis, which it was at one point. Arcayne 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the FA-class film articles, their sections are labeled either Synopsis or Plot. I personally would prefer "Synopsis" because the definition is more one of a summary than "Plot" is. I wouldn't fight hard over which one to have, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't either. I was just noting how individual users have changed it from synopsis to plot on at least two separate occasions, implying some confusion. I think plot might be better because that is what is primarily discussed under that heading (as opposed to any thematic elements, etc), and the word plot may be far more accessible than synopsis to many users.Arcayne 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree that a synopsis would include thematic elements (see #3 here, which basically says a "brief summary" for the film), I agree on the latter reason. I admit I wasn't clear on what "synopsis" meant in my early days of Misplaced Pages, so "Plot" would be fine with me for the sake of accessibility. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will change it to plot. I wouldn't be opposed to the synthesis of both words, ie. plot synopsis. It denotes clearly that what is being synopsized is the plot. Whichever way is agreeable to all.Arcayne 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. Synopsis is more elegant and more accurate regarding the nature of a summary. If users want to change it to plot, they can come here and discuss it. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They have already expressed confusion by changing it to plot at least twice. This says that, at first blush, they aren't making the connection even if the word is "elegant". Clarity beats elegance every time. As well, the word synopsis seems more inclusive of information than it has been interpreted here. By specifying that it is a synopsis of only the plot, we are able to avoid the confusion. Arcayne 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no big deal in leaving it as Plot. It's not going to be a point raised in FA nomination -- I've checked all FA-class film articles, and they use either Plot or Synopsis. Simplicity works; the content should immediately show that it's about what happens in the film. I really don't want to waste my breath over nitpicking this... there's more relevant concerns in improving the article, like the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbeit Macht Frei

I just noticed that the arbeit macht frei comparison was removed from the article for lack of citation. Granted, while History is something of an interest to me, I thought it fairly common knowledge that the phrase was utilized frequently in nazi concentration camps, here, here and here. It was part of the normaized cruelty of the nazis, and it is quite likely that the use of the image int he film would impact a European audience far more than a US one.Arcayne 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, and the wiki-link to the phrase mentions that fact. If you can provide a citation that directly ties the internment camp to the Nazi concentration camps through a reviewer's observation, that would be great and tie it more closely to the dystopian themes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an earlier used citation addresses that, in the phrasing "well on the way to fascism" (which nazism is pretty much the poster child for). However, it might not. In either case, mentioning that a song by the Libertines plays seems redundant, as the song and the artist appears in the Music section.Arcayne 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean... the Libertines aren't mentioned in the Music section. I think the redundancy is fine because the phrase ties into the thematic elements. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. This isn't redundant like the shantih was in the synopsis. This is more of an overlap that deals directly with the holocaust theme, while the music section and soundtrack article do not. —Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that the nod to the Holocaust theme was simply not there. Without a visial linkup to the concentration camps (at least, not w/out using OR) or having familiarity with the song (and one has to listen very, very carefully) to even hear the words 'arbeit macht frei,' the reference doesn't even belong. We aren't talking about the Shantih, Viriditas - that has already been determined in prior posts here. That being said, at least there was a clearly observational component to it. The arbeit macht frie reference is nowhere near as clear. A pity that Cuaron didn't have it spray-painted inside of Bexhill or something; simply having a song wherein the words are barely audible after the third listening doesn't seem to arise to the standards necessary for inclusion. I think it should be purged altogether as it cannot be referenced outside of one reviewer's reference that it is playing subtly in the background.Arcayne 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair argument. The "Shantih" and Animals references use only one citation; surely you don't want to remove these. While I think the existing citation could be replaced with something that observes the song more closely, I don't think it should be removed if there's no replacement to be found. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the comparisons is that the citations can be easily seen or heard observationally, whereas the arbeit macht frei reference is based almost solely upon the reviewer's knowledge of song titles by the Libertines. Do I think it should really be cut? No. Do I think a better reference be provided, to clean up the relationship between what is observed and what it means? Yes.Arcayne 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert of lead

Erik, you reverted a more accurate and ordered lead paragraph in favor of a poorly written, uncited and unsourced version. Why you or anyone would do that is quite strange. The statement you included, "while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film" is not unique to this film, nor is the statement supported. All films maintain themes. The lead should specify the theme ("hope") and not make general statements. And where is the source for "from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film"? Furthermore, the material added to the theme section to provide support for this material was not cited correctly. The source actually said: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very "important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope". —Viriditas | Talk 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the writing was perfect, but I think we need to decide how the lead paragraphs should be addressed overall. Read below and share your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We can decide all day, but please don't revert more accurate and concise writing in favor of poorly written, unsourced claims. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what your disagreement is. What he said was an overall emphasis about children. He didn't describe Children of Men as "a film about hope" separately from what he had said about children. It isn't a separate kind of hope he mentions in this context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a disagreement. I'm simply observing that Arcayne's recent additions to the theme and lead section don't match up with sources. Arcayne writes: "To emphasize the theme of hope, Cuarón included children as an element, considering them "important in my own notions of hope"." No, the source says: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very "important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope"." There I nothing about Cuaron including children in the film. It's very important that we maintain high standards here, or the article will degenerate into more of this. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. I was reading it in a different manner. I see what you're saying now, and I agree that the particular citation doesn't fit in that context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to ask you to remain civil again, Viriditas. Please stop making trollish attacks.Arcayne 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? —Viriditas | Talk 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop addressing my edits in a derogatory fashion. If you disagree with the edits, you should do so, but in a fashion that allows for a conducive working environment, and not one that creates friction and foments edit wars. We both want to avoid that, right? Simply add constructive suggestions on how to add to the edits already in place, and not simply belittle edits already made in good faith.Arcayne 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph layout

First of all, I think we should keep any mention of the film's reception out of the lead paragraph until we have a Reception section as well-rounded as Production and Themes. I think copy-editing could be done to briefly describe in the lead paragraphs the cinematography and the themes that the director put forth with his film. In addition, I think we should reduce the second lead paragraph (a summary of a summary) into a single sentence and make it part of the first lead paragraph. My idea is that the first paragraph would have the very basic details about the film, the second paragraph would be about cinematography/themes, and the last paragraph would be about how it was received, in terms of overall critical praise (or lack thereof) and awards that the film has received. Any other ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I probably reverted too swiftly.... I don't think either revision quite addressed the article, as it exists currently, in an appropriate summary. Hence my suggestions above to re-evaluate how the lead paragraph should be constructed. I agree with you, though, Viriditas, that "from the beginning to the end" was unnecessary verbiage... we can keep it simpler to say that themes exist throughout the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And the use of non-active voice, "has been" twice, criticism coming before production, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a possible passage here for the lead paragraph that would describe the film's themes in the appropriate article writing style? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why I can't add it to the article? —Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess to minimize cases of reverting, so we can all share our $0.02 before inserting the final product? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it noted somewhere that the lead has to follow the construct of the article? I didn't see it listed as anything but a suggestion in the guideline.

I rather disagree that the phrase "spiritual and metaphorical tone" is unsupported. You may recall that you argued rather insistently the at the film was Catholic allegory (even provided a cite for it) and, unless I am mistaken, Catholic fulfills the spiritual part of the statement whilst allegory fits the metaphorical description quite nicely. As there are more themes than simply that of hope (also noted by citation), I think it misleading to address only it in the lead. As far as making a note that the director's hand was in the film through the entirety of the film (whereas most directors are pretty much done with their film by the time the credits start rolling) is deserving of mention.Arcayne 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Viriditas was more concerned with the wording of it. I don't believe he has any intent to exclude the thematic mentions, but he may be seeking a different way of presenting a summary of the themes per the writing styles he has pointed out on occasion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidly, I think that the wording I replaced was, while not perfect, a vast improvement on what was there before. I welcome his suggestions as to what he feels should be addressed rathe than the uncivil remarks he has instead chosen to add. Let him offer an alternative here, so it can be addressed in a more civil manner than he has chosen to address the work already in place.Arcayne 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs demonstrating how you improved the section. —Viriditas | Talk 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Viriditas. You were asked to provide an alternative to what is already there, so it can be addressed. You may submit your statements here, so that we can evaluate them by the same criteria you have measured alternatives by.Arcayne 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. It is the responsibility of the editor to substantiate their additions to the article. I have added the OR tag due to the lack of cited sources for your lead material, which was previously removed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)\

Again, please provide an alternative to what is already there, instead of adding tags which express your views alone, and essentially clutters the article. You are being given a golden opportunity to present your alternative lead and thematic statements now so that we can evaluate them on their merits. This opportunity offers you the chance to seek a concensus, which is what everyone else in this article (and Misplaced Pages) has chosen to do. I have expressed before why the statements I have added are there. You may find that reviewing them to be helpful.Arcayne 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The content you added was unsourced, did not appear in the article previously, and cite requests were removed. There is no "alternative" to this situation. I originally wrote and added the section, to which you added original research. So, you have the burden of proof. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JESUS! VIRIDITAS! Misplaced Pages does not work by fucking slapping on tags, whether it be troll warning or OR! You are both clearly able to communicate, and I've tried to provide an opportunity here for all of us to figure out what would be agreeable to write for the lead paragraphs! I'm going to reduce the lead paragraphs to the minimal detail until we fill out the article enough so none of us bitch about the other's edits. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now... share your bloody ideas. Are my suggestions at the beginning of the section appropriate enough? Are there any recommendations in how the lead paragraphs should be presented, based on other FA-class film articles' leads? Or any original ideas that are in line with WP:LEAD, for that matter? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific? You mentioned something about expanding the reception section, first, which I support. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. Let's make sure the prominent awards and nominations for the film are mentioned, and to provide positive and negative criticism (more positive than negative, since it was more positively received). In the meantime, we can develop a second lead paragraph that discusses the format of the film -- the cinematography and the thematic cross-referencing. The reception information can be summarized in a third lead paragraph when we fill out the Reception section. Maybe go so far to state that CoM was screened in the UK for a while before it came out in the US. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There was mention before about how the Lead should follow the progression of the article (ie, plot, production, theme, music, reception, etc.) I know that is an optional guideline, but not all FA articles do that. Is that what we want to do here? I ask for clarification.Arcayne 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I definitely think a summary of the film's reception should go at the end, but I don't have a strong preference about how to address the themes and cinematography. Maybe we can mention cinematography relatively briefly in the first lead paragraph, then devote a whole second paragraph to themes, as that seems to be the "goal" of the film. Of course, that's my opinion, and I'm all ears for fresh ideas. In the meantime, I'll try to put together some cited reviews to help expand the Reception section so we can draw upon it down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Whenever the discussion slows down here, perhaps we might think about archiving this talk page? It's reached 235 kilobytes now. Just a suggestion. Disinclination 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. That was a lot of discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph Layout, Take 2

Well, i think that seems like a good way to approach it. Viriditas did have a good idea about making a point of drawing attention to the cinematography. As in The Matrix (a film that is neither FA or GA), something new was done to expand the field beyond where it was before, and it was done to accomplish a certain goal. The cinematography in CoM was designed to create an immediacy to the film, and to ground it in reality (yes, all of that was OR :) ). I think this was a 'message' film, rather than an action shoot-em-up or, as some critics have called it, and action film with chase scenes. Since lots of films are message films, I think it probably more important to use the lead to focus on the most important aspects of the article to the least (as journalists are taught) first - the cinematography and production, then the themes, then the reception. What do you think?

Unmarked reverts

I'm concerned about Arcayne's latest reverts, which were not labeled as reverts in the edit summary: . The use of qualifiers and needless words are not helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 21:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(First of all, I don't want either of you to start dredging anything about any 3RR incidents in the past.) I support minimalism in the writing, as long as the content remains intact. Maybe Arcayne has a reason for his expansion, that something didn't make sense to him right away with the previous edit. I'm retiring from Misplaced Pages for the day, so I hope you both can discuss copy-edit techniques without raising anyone's blood pressure. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA and Elements of Style covers the use of ambiguous, unsupported qualifiers. Arcayne added "slightly" to the passage - that is not covered in the source text. The film takes place in the future. Arcayne also added back in needless words that makes the writing less concise. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please address your issues at the bottom of the page, so as to avoid the appearance of hiding your comments.Arcayne 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would I want to hide my comments? I warned you about making unmarked reverts yesterday, and today, you continued to do it, using a similar edit summary: Please take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. —Viriditas | Talk 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not going to discuss this, as it can serve no purpose except to act as fuel for an edit war. Granted, I haven't been the most polite person to you, and for that, I am sorry. That said, i am not your editorial punching bag. If my opinion differs from yours, it doesn't make me incompetent. I suggest - strongly - that you move on, and work with your fellow contributors from here on out to finsh editing the article. Do that, and we're copacetic. Don't make the effort, and it will remain difficult.Arcayne 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. This section is about your use of unmarked reverts, and you have been warned twice. Don't do it again. —Viriditas | Talk 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for revert requested

Arcayne, why did you change, "Cuarón did not attempt to use the dystopian, futuristic setting of the film as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present" back to "Cuarón has stated that he was not attempting to use the dystopic, slightly futuristic setting presented by Children of Men as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present." As explained above, needless words and qualifiers that don't appear in the source text make the prose less accurate and concise. —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because my edit used the language a bit more elegantly. It also had the virtue of being more accurate.Arcayne 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that possible when your edit was less concise and inserted a qualifier that changed the meaning and did not appear in the original source? —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis heading

I prefer the synopsis heading as we are discussing a summary of the plot, not the plot itself. Why was this changed? —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the conversation above where this was discussed. There was no strong preference either way, and it was argued that most FA articles have either plot or synopsis/ As plot is a more accurate description than synopsis, it was changed. I still thank that plot synopsis would be more accurate still, as it would overview the plot, and not the entire article. It was one of the main reasons that thematic elements aren't included, as they would in a synopsis. I hope that recaps matters.Arcayne 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik and I have both expressed our preference for "synopsis", and "plot synopsis" is redundant. So, why was the header changed to "plot"? —Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-read "Synopsis vs. Plot" -- "While I disagree that a synopsis would include thematic elements (see #3 here, which basically says a "brief summary" for the film), I agree on the latter reason. I admit I wasn't clear on what 'synopsis' meant in my early days of Misplaced Pages, so 'Plot' would be fine with me for the sake of accessibility." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• GA-Class film articles
• Film articles with archived peer reviews
• WikiProject Film articles