This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anupam (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 2 April 2014 (→Urban Legend: more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:22, 2 April 2014 by Anupam (talk | contribs) (→Urban Legend: more)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Film: Christian / American Stub‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about religious debates. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about religious debates at the Reference desk. |
Preorder tickets?
Considering that pre-order tickets were available for the film months before it released, it's likely that a significant amount of the revenue from opening weekend came from those and not from other movie-goers. Is there going to be any way to statistically tell how much money came from pre-order tickets? Silverseren 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is a way. AFAIK pre-ordered tickets are generally considered part of the opening take, so long as they are used during opening weekend. I don't think it matters, however. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Urban Legend
It seems the first thing most people notice about this film is the similarity between it and a certain urban legend. In fact, I've noticed it from all sides, Christian and Atheist. I am of the opinion that these similarities are enough to warrant the inclusion of their mention in the article, and I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to weigh in on the discussion.
I haven't done so yet because I am would like to see sources based in the film industry making the comparison, and I haven't noticed any who outright say it, just those who repeatedly imply it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Entertainment Tonight describes the film as being "based off a chain email popular ten years ago". Probably should be noted.LM2000 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- One Christian source, one Atheist source, and one film industry source, it's good enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The Patheos blog links do not meet WP:RS and are unacceptable for this article - they are self published blogs and are unreliable. The one by ET, that User:LM2000 is fine and I've added that back in the article, in the appropriate section. Furthermore, you are violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with your addition of addition of this reference as well as this link. Please undo your edits. Thank you, Anupam 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Synopsis
The descriptions of Josh and the professor given in the official synopsis are a part of the story and should remain. A movie in which a polite, warm-hearted atheist professor debates a closed-minded Christian student is a very different one from this one. Therefore, it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include descriptions of those characters pulled from a primary source. I would argue that it's not a violation to include descriptions based on reviews and expert opinions, even if one of them opines that the professor in the film is one of the worst philosophy professors imaginable, but not being a violation and being conducive to a good article aren't the same thing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Reception
Is there any need or use for a 'Christian appraisal' subsection? I don't see any other such section, even on other Christian films. Is there any precedent whatsoever for this? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Categories: