Talk:Highlander: The Source

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 article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 From scratch 2 Sean Connery 3 Oh, no. Not again. 4 2006 gap 5 Loons

[edit] From scratch

hmm... apparently it has to be from scratch. if it has to be deleted, do it. i just copied it from the previous page because it was too long. HoneyBee 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, with the DVD release in Russia, the whole article needs to be scrapped and re-written based on undeniably accurate information: the film itself.--TOOTCB 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But as we all know, it is not the official release accoring to Davis/PanzerStephan 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more "official" than the leaked information that was here before. --TOOTCB 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Connery

Since when is he in this movie? There's nothing on the official website about his participation in the film and I figure that's a big name for the official site to overlook. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spookyadler (talk • contribs) 21:20, December 29, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, no. Not again.

It is my opinion that there should be a mention somewhere of the general opinion among critics that the Highlander franchise gets worse with each successive film. Such critical opinion is relevant to an article about a film, in my opinion. Would it be appropriate to cover that in detail on the page of the original Highlander (film), possibly in the section of that article currently labeled "Reception", and link to it from this article? Or should it be covered (or at least summarized) in this article? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-11 16:19Z

The film isn't even out, so there's no point in trying to compare this film to the previous incarnations just yet. The best one could do is find reliable sources of film journalists who contest the quality of this film based on the franchise's past, but even so, that would be non-notable speculation about the subject at hand. Considering that you had a previous comment that I reverted that contested the quality of this upcoming film, I'm concerned about the neutral approach on your suggestion. I don't think such a viewpoint is necessary until the film comes out, so it can be appropriately compared by reviewers to the other films. If readers of this film article want to find out how the other films performed, they can visit the relevant film articles. In the meantime, there should be an addition of a Production section and similar sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean ignoring criticism. Critics nigh-universally pan the various Highlander sequels, nominating them for Razzies, putting them on Worst Movies Of The Year (and occasionally Worst Movies Ever) lists, and so on. Wikipedia is not a marketing device. If a work in progress is important enough to merit an article when the film hasn't even been released, then it merits reference to the sordid history of its franchise. Come to think of it, I am not sure that this merits an article, since the subject of the article does not yet exist. This article is essentially just advertising, and should be deleted. I am not going to nominate it for speedy deletion, because there may be some precedent here that I am unaware of, but I am going to propose it be deleted. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 15:46Z

Proposal can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlander: The Source. I've voted Strong Keep because AfD does not apply here at all. AfD, when it comes to films, is often used for films that do not have the strong possibility of coming out, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Dwarf: The Movie. Instead of deleting the article on the basis of promotional material, I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Template messages and apply whatever templates you think are necessary to suggest that the article needs to be improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be improved. Until the film is released, there is nothing to write an article about. But that's just my opinion. At most, there should be a footnote in the article of the real Highlander saying that another sequel is planned. However, if the general policy of Wikipedia is to permit articles which are simply advance promotional material for products soon to be on the market, or if films are some kind of special case where advertising is permitted on Wikipedia, then the consensus will be to keep the article, and no harm will have been done. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 17:16Z

I've added a brief Production section to reflect when Lions Gate acquired the rights to make the film, mention of a follow-up franchise, and a title change. All this information is encyclopedic and improves the article. I'm fine with the "Story" section being reduced, rewritten, or even deleted, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus was to keep the article (and by extension, all such articles, which is a learning experience for me). As such, I have no problems with the article's current content. You have done a good job. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-18 06:20Z

Important: Please note that the AFD outcome only applies to this article (there is no "by extension, all such articles" in this case). All articles of some type don't automatically become immune to deletion if one of them is kept in an AFD. --Coredesat 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The results of the AfD were that the reasons I gave for proposing the article be deleted -- verifiability and advertising -- were not even worthy of being refuted. Read the AfD. If those reasons for deletion do not apply to this unreleased film, they don't apply to any unreleased film. That's not to say that an AfD might not be appropriate for this or other articles for other reasons. But to see the overwhelming -- unanimous, other than myself -- response to the AfD and not learn something from it would be unreasonable. I have learned something from it, at any rate. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-18 23:10Z

[edit] 2006 gap

According to the citation in the article, filming was completed in December 2005. However, it is now January 2007, so there may have been difficulty by the studio in getting the film released, either in theaters or straight-to-DVD. If anyone comes across information citing the on-goings of this completed film in 2006, please share. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loons

It's always strange to me that usually these deletion nominations are pushed by one person who seems to be totally against the article for whatever odd personal reason. Keep this article. I've never seen any of the films and don't intend to but when in doubt KEEP. And, oh yeah, find something else to obsess about. 69.224.122.60 08:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's terribly rude. While I am have no doubt that the movie itself will be atrocious, that has no bearing at all on whether or not the article itself should be kept. If you read the RfA proposal, you would see that my reasons for submitting it for consideration for deletion were based on the Wikipedia policies of advertising and verifiability. The community consensus was that these policies do not apply to unreleased films in the same way that they apply to other articles, and that this article should not be deleted. That's good enough for me, and it ought to be good enough for you. Personal insults are not warranted. I am not going to delete the personal attack, even though it has been made by an anonymous editor, because I don't think you quite crossed the line where automatic deletion is warranted. But you ought to delete it yourself. If you do, you may delete this comment, as well. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-18 14:12Z

It seems that the surest way to end up hating a movie is to go in with no doubt that you'll hate it. Typically you'll always find a reason to if you're that sure it will be terrible. That is perfectly in keeping with critical response to Endgame. It may not have been great, and the closing fight with Kell reeked after the spectacular scene in Connor's loft, but it was miles ahead of either of the previous sequels. I have my own reservations about this film. I'm affraid that it is going to make some of the same mistakes that Highlander 2 did, but I will go in hoping for the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.41.47 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The talk page is not for general discussion about the film, per talk page guidelines. Please keep your comments focused on improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is a leaked version of this movie (not script, actual movie) floating around already on some of the torrent sites... so, yes, it is completed and it does exist (please don't ask me where to find copies). Not promoting that anyone should download it or anything, just letting folks know as it pertains to its status as a completed movie awaiting release. --72.150.89.179 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this Leaked version, It really wasnt good. Most of the events on the main page about this movie do happen, but the events are out of order. " Spoliers " But Mac Doesnt take a quicking from the guardian, he doesnt even chop the head off.