Talk:Alice (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alice (2007 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Changes

Archives
October 2005 -

[edit] Changes

Erikster, thanks for updating the article. I generally liked making the information more concise, but your data lacked some better description and made things a little too summary. It's nice to have a little flavour and some of the odd details of the history (including a further link that's not IGN, which there are plenty of!). I've followed this film for years and unfortunately, McGee has erased some of his earlier comments on it, which would otherwise be here.

Question, do we need the old stuff here about the fan-made poster?

--Eradicator

Dude, you edited in information that did not match the citation. If you want to add in further detail, these need to be cited. I included everything relevant from the existing citations, but if you know more details, then these need to be backed up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel the changes you removed were entirely wrong and worthy of a revert. It would be nice to either correct what you feel is unsourced, or bring it to talk first. I do appreciate your clean up efforts, but I think you may have been throwing away some good with the bad. Just beware of WP:OWN and assume good faith editing so as not to discourage other editors from contributing. We all want this to be a good and accurate article too. -- Dmeranda 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but I reverted because the majority of the edits were additions of information and assumptions that did not exist in the current citations. For example, "August turned in a script treatment for Alice, but Wes Craven was unhappy with it and "things quickly fell apart". August had not been attached to develop fuller drafts for the film adaptation" is not verified by the following citation. I am fine with additions of information, but there was unnecessary verbiage such as "There was no news on the status of Alice for over a year." The existing information already reflects that. I reviewed the citations that were available in the original revision, and the ones that were removed were speculative and unverifiable. Stuff like, ""then he slammed his fist down and said, 'we are making this movie'" doesn't work if it was back in 2000, and the film hasn't made sense. It's extraneous detail. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The changes I made were directly referenced and were not assumptions. Your example is incorrect as John August presented that information on his website which I correctly cited. I also disagree with your opinion that because "existing information already reflects" something that it's not worth explaining outright. The citation about the fist-slamming and "we're making this movie" is part of this film's history and I feel could be interesting and important for people that want to know more about the long process that has been involved in trying to get this film made. I strongly disagree with your changes and will want to ask the community at large for help in resolving this problem. I think it's also rude of you to revert my edits without any form of discussion. - Eradicator 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain further my issues with your edits. I probably should've sorted through your changes and worked out what to keep or not keep, as opposed to a simple revert. Now, Dark Wonderland does not have any encyclopedic value. Your edit said, that it was "often" referred to as such, but nothing in the citation reflects the scale of this rumor. It lacks notability other than the fact someone asked about that title and got it debunked by August. In addition, I don't think that the fist-slamming has any encyclopedic value because production did not pick up after that. Thus, the gesture is not notable. If fist-slamming occurred and production took off, it would reflect the high level of support. However, this did not take place.

I also realized this: Your information about August's film treatment being shunned by Craven actually came from the first citation. You're supposed to reference the same citation again. That was one of my reasons for the removal, because that information did not exist in the following citation. Also, I consider "a year passed" mentions to be unnecessary filler, when the reader can surmise that from the month/year mention. I'll try to go back and re-work the changes, but there are some things that seemed unnecessary. I apologize for my revert; it was a case where boldness should not have come into play. I am not closed to discussion and would like to discuss the differences in our revisions further. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What August writes about that title clearly indicates that there is a "scale". "It’s so interesting how (mis-) information spreads on the Internet. For instance, the title “Dark Wonderland.” Don’t ask me where that came from." This wording shows that he considers there to be a scale - something that has spread on the Internet. The second IGN article again discusses this title (and its debunking) and the first of the IGN articles is titled "Wes Craven to Dark Wonderland". Even now there are numerous websites that use this title such as Rotten Tomatoes. The fist-slamming quote (which was part of McGee's writing on his own site, sadly removed now) does have value. Whether or not the deal succeeded is not the point - it's part of the history and should be included.

Where are the rules that say I'm "supposed to reference the same citation again"? Why not just move the citation marker if you feel it works better in a different place? I don't think we need to have a citation marker after every use.

I don't agree with your year/surmise argument. Your version uses the date of the IGN article (September 2001). If the "first draft" was due in January 2001 (stated in the IGN article), that is probably the time he finished the treatment. However, your wording makes it seem as though August turned in the treatment in September. True, he does not state precisely when the treatment was done, but then I think it's misleading to state things in the way you have.

I think that your edits removed many of the things that explained why we even bother to list the events here. The history needs some explanation, not just a list of summary facts that do not include much of the (sometimes important) information in the cited articles. You've given a few facts, but with very little explanation as to relevance and how or why they are connected and even why anyone should be interested. By explaining, for example, that the film has had a rocky production so far and "struggled", the article reflects the reality of the situation.

Lastly, repeating "film adaptation of the third-person shooter computer game American McGee's Alice" is nothing but redundancy. If you want to eliminate extraneous information, I suggest you start there.

I'm open to discussion too, so we should be able to get this sorted... Eradicator 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Dark Wonderland, this is nonetheless a rumor. Should articles on upcoming films list all the rumored titles or actors/actresses for specific franchise films? Internet communities are not prominent sources in determining encyclopedic value. IGN does not actually identify Dark Wonderland as a title, if you look closely. In frequenting IGN, I know as a fact that film articles from there will have their titles italicized, and this has no italicization. (See example.) There's no basis for the rumor, and there is no notability for its inclusion. About the fist-slamming, Wikipedia isn't a source for indiscriminate information. Sure, it's historical, but that doesn't define encyclopedic value. Like I said, I would be fine with its inclusion if it were followed speedily by actual production. However, without that happening, it's not a significant event. If you have a case for its value, please make it.

For referencing, check out Wikipedia:Footnotes. You're supposed to use the <ref> marker after every use. Otherwise, we have no idea which citation the information pertains to; since you did not do that, I had assumed that you added unsourced information. As for the year/surmise, do what you want with that; I caution you not to guess as to when certain events happened, as that is original research. In addition, using words like "struggled" does not adhere to the NPOV policy. It's too opinionated. Just deliver the facts as they are, without any assumptions as to the degree that production was pursued. Lastly, per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph is supposed to be a concise overview of the rest of the article. Since there's only a couple of paragraphs of Production, the redundancy stands out more than it would if the film article was fully developed. The basic facts are outlined based on the content of what's in Production. Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a question of listing dozens of rumours and fictional casting or wishful thinking by one person. That is a title that I believe was something of an "Internet phenomenon" of sorts in that it was particularly widespread for a time. I'll review the quotation guidelines at Wikipedia but I fully disagree with your conclusions based on so-called "NPOV" which does not mean "bland statistics with no adjectives whatsoever". Look up anything in an encyclopaedia (including Wikipedia) that's not mathematical or absolutely scientific in nature. Battles will be described as "brutal" and harsh experiences will be "harrowing". NPOV is about being neutral and not presenting a one-sided case. It's not about erasing every descriptive word. Again, about the original enthusiasm of Dimension films to make the movie, I simply disagree with your opinion that it would have to end in the production achieving completion to be relevant. That is evidence of the production being in the hands of people that want to do it and it failing for whatever reason : ie. struggling to reach completion. Eradicator 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One citation about a fan asking John August if the title would be Dark Wonderland is not a clear indication of an Internet phenomenon. If it's important to include, then review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (memes). In addition, if descriptive words are used, then there should be context to back it up. For example, if historians have reflected on the high toll of casualties for the Battle of Gettysburg, then "brutal" can be used. However, you use "struggled" here as if actual attempt (met with failure) was made to produce the film. What if they went after more convenient projects? What if they purposely put it on hold due to budget limitations? That wouldn't reflect a "struggle", which carries a lot more weight than necessary in this particular context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's not one fan, it's John August's response. I think it is as credible as an otherwise almost-entirely-IGN list of sources (who, for that matter made a mistake in one article and mention that it was a rumour, later on). Obviously, there was an attempt made at the film or Wes Craven would not have been attached and John August would not have written a treatment. Obviously, an attempt was made in that much later, the two Hoebers were hired to write a script. Clearly, there has been ongoing work to create this film and it's not been with the intention of releasing the film seven years down the line. It's gone from Miramax/Dimension to Fox and to Universal. Eradicator 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion:The word that sums up this dispute is encyclopedic value. If the information hasn't any encyclopedic value then it shouldn't be included. Fist slamming isn't encylopediac information. It seems as if there is a slight case of article ownership. That isn't helpful as it discourages people from editing the article and presents a writing style which may include bias. I find it's very hard to write an article about something you know a lot about without unconsciously influencing the writing with your own POV. 'Struggled to become a reality for several years' sounds like a personal opinion. Overall I think both editors involved need to encourage other people to edit this article and maybe take a break from editing this particular article for a while.

Seraphim Whipp 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think you gave this subject much attention or consideration. However, I do agree it would be good if we could get other people involved in editing this. Eradicator 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, dude, you can go ahead and put your changes back in. I won't stop you from making the article colorful with phrases like "struggled to become a reality". Whatever you think makes the article work. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)