Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 20 April 2012

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Caché

Hi, Ring Cinema. I got the move reverted on the grounds that it was not uncontroversial, so it is back to status quo for the time being. I requested a move on the talk page so there can be fuller discussion to determine a consensus of whether or not the move should take place. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

re: Hello

Most of your contributions are not in the article space, so I'm far from lying. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You said "absolutely none." You are a liar. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion and consensus

Read wp:brd. If something is included and then deleted, as with your unexplained preference for indicating qualification outcome on a part of the page that deals with the situation before any match had even been scheduled, then it is incumbent on those who would include it to argue their case at the relevant talk page. Your obstinate refusal to do so is tantamount to editwarring. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments removed. Ring Cinema, you're blocked; you know what that means; appeal the block, or don't - whatever. But don't attack editors. Same for others.

Move onwards.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, your talk page access has been revoked for personal attacks. If you want to appeal this block, please email the request to myself or unblock-en-l (that's the unblock request mailing list). Thanks, Swarm 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus

I'm awaiting for you stop edit-warring and actually start the discussion justifying your changes. If you're not interested in doing so, I'll change it back to something nearer consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Eva and The White Ribbon

I think on reflecion that Eva and the schoolmaster are a critical element of the movie's meaning. They are completely "normal" people who fall in love in an innocent way with apparently normal backgrounds and solid ethics. While there are other potentially sympathetic characters, everyone else ranges from dysfunctional to evil. Eva's family is important to a story full of sexual and psychological abuse by parents. Her father genuinely cares about her and the entire scenario I believe is meant to reflect what is good about people - why we do not all live in the insane village (or to raise the question of wheter we do).

Also I believe the order of events is important but a thoroughly character-based summary is appropriate. What is omitted or never solved all has meaning - not that we should interpret this for the reader, but the movie is obviosly not accidental. It is quite meticulous. Two more pennies worth of opinion on it... Obotlig (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it is true that Eva and her family can be viewed as a foil to the villagers. I might differ with you about that, though. One way to take her father is as a token of the same patriarchy or authoritarian impulse that distorts the values elsewhere. This turns on how reasonable one views his exercise of parental discretion. And then we are presented with the question of the value of romantic love. We are habituated to the elevation of personal romantic attachments above all, but this, too, is a value that deserves examination. I'm not sure if Haneke is trying to present that as a problem or not. I think that part of the power of the film is in the paradox that, although it is obvious that society is replete with problems of incipient hostility, violence, objectification, denial, etc, there is finally nothing unusual about this village. It is typical and typically perverse. Is Eva and her family an exception or the rule? I'm not sure, although it is easy to see the schoolmaster's willingness to help others as reflective of the fellow feeling that I personally find is the essence of morality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No Country

Hi,

I think that this mention of the exact place where the main characters live is not an unnecessary detail. If not well put or introduced in the plot or elsewhere in the article, I might suggest to place it at what appears to you as a pertinent position, but not basically reverse/omit the fact. Thx--LPLT (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, well, my thinking is that it is incidental because nothing in the story depends on it. We establish the setting, but in a different way from naming a place that is obscure anyway. Maybe you are right, though. Admittedly, this is a problem area. I am thinking about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Check footnote 6. That covers it well enough? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it was already mentionned with the footnote, to be honnest. Thus seems ok eventhough it can be clearly notified in the text too. Considering some additionnal precisions, when you make a pause on the film at the scene of the phone bill (when Chighur enters the trailer), you can see that the days in which the action takes place are between the June 3rd/4th to June 6th since the last call registered on the bill is passed on June 3rd probably a friday, since the bill arrived in the mail box on monday morning, probably the 6th. You may mention day period too, up to you. Cheers.--LPLT (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't try to get into minutiae like that. That's speculative and trivial besides. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Bande à part vs Band of Outsiders

In light of your previous participation in film titling issues, the discussion at Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move may be of interest.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

References in Annie Hall

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Your edit this evening broke another reference. References can be named, such as <ref name="Baxter29">Author, page</ref>, so that you can save space and memory if using the same references elsewhere in the article. But, if you delete the defining reference, any subsequent <ref name="Baxter29"/> has nothing to refer back to, so will give an ugly red error message.
The answer is to check if a named reference is used elsewhere before removing it; if you choose to remove it, then you'll need to find the <ref name="Baxter29"/> (the 'find' tool is your friend here) and reinsert the full reference.
I think a bot fixes these automatically these days, though.

On another note, we need to work on the Themes section.So far we only have one source from a rather amateurish online 'magazine' which has no assertion of notability. There will be plenty of respectable sources out there; Peter Cowie's book, etc. The JPS 20:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But you've done exactly the same thing again! The JPS 11:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a variety of references are helpful. As a compromise, I have removed the Rosenblum one from that claim, keeping Baxter and NYT (although the NYT is a respectable source, book sources generally have more prestige). The reference currently named "Annie" covered a range of pages -- these should be sorted so that the specific page numbers are used. But, I really think we need to develop the 'themes' section, as it doesn't look very good to ignore a range of established scholars in favour of a non-established website. The JPS 11:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI for User Ronz

Concerning a pattern of behavior not suitable for Misplaced Pages, by a user you've had dealings with, please list examples Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz_behaviour Dream Focus 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonny's death

Hello!

I have the three films, so although I suspect I can answer your question accurately, I shall watch it this afternoon after my lunch (which is on the table!) and get back to you later today. It is 14:36 hrs. British Summer Time in the old UK, and I have just come in late from walking with my dog... Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That was great! Will now rewatch "II" & "III" for the countless time.

Okay, the sequence of events:

• Heavily pregnant Connie answers the phone to a female who says, "Tell Carlo, I can't see him tonight>"
• She tells him that his dinner is ready. He says that he doesn't want it.
• Fearsome row ensues ... Connie smashes crockery ... he gives her a dreadful beating.
• Carlo leaves. Connie telephones. Sonny, wild with temper, races off alone ...

• Must be a set up: Ambush waiting at the toll booth.

Oh, and it is 1946 (not '45) mentioned at the time of the attack on Vito. I have made that edit now.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen my postings for you on my talk page today? Sorry about the "Now" Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Question for you on my talk page. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather trilogy

I wanted to mention that, since you love watching the film so much, I believe you would enjoy Coppola's commentary, especially to the first film. He mentions so many interesting things about production. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I do. My three are the 25th Anniversary Editions the wide-screen versions, on good old VHS video tapes. The commentaries are great.

Good to hear from you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had come to the final version ... but, of course, this is Misplaced Pages ...

I was stunned when I checked My watchlist before retiring last night, but it was too late to take action. As a result a rotten night's sleep! All fired up to get "stuck in" this morning only to find you still up and dealing with our young friend, who not only does not leave edit summaries, and, according to his User page, is a teenager, living in the UK, from the Indian sub-continent. (We had come together earlier this year ... no problems then)... SEE BELOW! Then, I got into an edit conflict with either you or he earlier, and lost the bloody lot! "Can't get my head round that!" I have left something else there now, BTW --Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

Hello JTBX,

I just wanted to tell you how pleased I am with your editing of the Plot summary in The Godfather article this afternoon (I'm in the UK... where are you?) and to let you know that I have put the paragraphs back as they were to facilitate comparison with earlier edits. This may help to avoid hysterical reverting of your excellent work. I have also made a few minor edits. Have a look! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Just doing my job. I trust you know better about this in terms of why you changed the paragraphs back etc. JTBX (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I now understand why you moved them, kinda tired, sorry. I am also from the UK. Thanks again JTBX (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do you remember this (above)?

• You seemed to be "hell-bent" on brevity then, only two months ago.

• We watch with great interest. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I still am, and still go around plots making sure they are concise and tidy, but this film is of course different, and very long. If you have read my draft please consider it, as way too many details were being left out at the expense of sacrificing notable information. --JTBX (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC

• Sure. I was heads up on this last night, but thought you were going to wait until you had some response to your posting on the article's Talk page. Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You've lost the thread

Why are you editing the draft on the talk page? As I already mentioned, all the useful elements have been incorporated into the article already. Please stop. I don't want a wholesale replacement of what is already a reasonably good plot summary. Every difference between the two drafts is better in the article. Edit the article if you want to improve the plot summary. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• When I posted the above on your page here on 18 April 2012, I expected you to reply to me. Then I got the impression that you were having a "co-operating dialogue" with User:JTBX on The Godfather discussion page, whereas I was in amazement that here he was expanding the plot without any edit summaries – just like User:Wrath X was on April 1 and April 2 until my intervention – when two months ago, I was saying "Well done!" ( I posted that dialogue with User:JTBX here – see above)...He was "hell-bent" on brevity then, only two months ago.

• You are still, today, working together on it, aren't you?

--Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am observing. What happened was that I asked JTBX to put a draft on the talk page. I took the parts I thought were improvements in the article. I thought you would notice that, so I wasn't explicit about it. Then you edited the talk page, and I left you the note that I'd prefer we edit the article. Then you continued to edit the article. So here we are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I had, mistakenly, believed that the draft was your work. The request to put a draft on the discussion page missed me – where is it? Did you e-mail User:JTBX? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Cannes

No, doesn't seem out of place to me. Berlin or Venice could lay claim to that title, too, but I think Cannes is held slightly higher. Toronto pretty much shut down due to the festival when I was there last year, but I guess any city hosting a major international film festival does. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please stop edit warring at No Country for Old Men (film). This is your 3rd revert in less than 6 hours. While I appreciate your passion for the article, I will not hesitate to report you to WP:3RRNB to stop this edit warring. El duderino (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)