From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority 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. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading.

A plot summary needs to be added to this film article, or the current one needs to be expanded.

Contents 1 NON NEUTRAL 2 NPOV 3 Please Help 4 Suggestions 5 Response to suggestions 6 Another Response to your suggestions 7 My rv 8 == 8.1 Budget typo?

[edit] NON NEUTRAL

I agree with CovenantD, this looks more like a presskit or something.

[edit] NPOV

This article reads like a press release from the production company, and the reviews section reads like more hype. I suspect a concerted effort to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting this film. CovenantD 19:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help

I am a producer of this film and i am sorry if i adding information to this page that i was not supposed to add. After I discovered this website that had information about our film, I added links to articles and reviews about the film. All of these articles and reviews are from credible 3rd party sources and can be verified by clicking on the link. Please advise me if i did something wrong or if i need to do something better. Thanks. 64.134.91.79 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I've just finished making some changes that I hope helped NPOV the article and make it more encyclopedic, but there's still some work that needs to be done on it. Primarily, the article contains no negative info. Did the movie receive any negative or neutral reviews? It would not be good practice to exclude these. Also, there are parts that read like a press release for the film, maybe because some text is used from such a release. We need to make sure we have permission to use this material (we probably do, since Sean Wolfington is helping with the article). Anyway, the article should read more like an encyclopedia article. I can work more on it and post more specific suggestions here. I'd like help if anyone has time. I've also asked Sean Wolfington to post suggestions here (rather than working directly on the article, per WP:COI). delldot | talk 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest cutting down the quotations from the reviews to maybe a sentence each and paraphrasing. delldot | talk 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to suggestions

Thanks for your changes. I don't know what type of negative information you are looking for but up to this point everything has been very positive for us and we are hoping there is not any negative news in the future. One piece of recent news is that the white house and the department of immigration gave our director an award for the film because it portrays latino's in a positive light and is a positive contribution to the integration of Latino's into America. Here is an article that is about that: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=101940 Thank you for all of your edits... please let me know if i can do anything in the future. Seanwolfington 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Response to your suggestions

Here is a "not so great" of a review - we only got 2.5 out of 4 stars - http://www.reelfilm.com/tiff0604.htm#bella

This is another "not so great" review - http://www.eyeweekly.com/tiff/?p=27 To quote the negative part: "Alejandro Monteverde’s directorial debut is ambitious, but it veers too far into sentimentality to be successful......A good-looking movie with good-looking actors but, ultimately, too pat and too sweet to satisfy."

Obviously i would prefer that these negative reviews not be in the article but i wanted to give you the information you requested.

Thanks again for taking the time to edit this. Sean.Seanwolfington 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole article still reads way too much like one huge publicity blurb. Try taking a look at some other Wikipedia entries on films to get a better idea of how this type of article should be written; people don't come to Wikipedia to read extracts of favourable reviews, they want to know what the film is about - and this article mentions nowhere what the actual plot is.

Personally I feel you have too much of a personal vested interest in this film to be an objective, neutral editor on this article, Sean. Wikipedia does not exist to provide free publicity for filmmakers. Arkady Rose 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My rv

I just made this revert. The first part was cut and pasted from the website they provided, and the second part, stating that the founder of the group that producers were a part of was censored for abusing children seemed too irrelevant to an article about the movie. delldot talk 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==

Why did you remove the first part which references the directors and producers as being members of Regnum Christi?

Is it irrelevant that a "pro-humanity" movie is made by people that follow the teachings of a child abuser?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I removed the first part because Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission to release the material under the GFDL, and this was a word-for-word copy of material on the site provided. If you want to put the information in your own words, I suppose that would be OK, if you can show that it's relevant.

About your second question, yeah, I do see that as irrelevant. I mean, are we going to list every group the producers are a part of and what the leaders do? Or is there something special about being a part of this group? Also, it's very important that all articles are written from a neutral point of view, not that this material is inherently biased. I don't really care whether the material is in there or not, and I'll let it go if others agree that it should be in the article, but I kind of doubt anyone will. I think if you add it back in, you should just explain why it's important that the producers are members of the group in a neutral way. You know what would work better, though, is if you could find a reliable source in which this relationship is brought up. E.g. if you can find a source criticizing the movie makers for their ties to this group, you could put that in a "reception" section, with a sentence like "producers of the movie were criticized by [...] for their involvement in a group whose leader was censured for child abuse." If you do that, I doubt anyone would object to the inclusion of the material. If you can't find a source, it may have problems with being original research. Peace, delldot talk 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

= thanks for the explanation, i thought the first point was relevant because regnum christi are giving the impression that it is a movie made by them, that it is one of their apostolates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.11.222 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budget typo?

According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482463/business), the budget was $3.3M, not $4.3M as listed in this article. Is there a citation for that number, or should it just be changed to 3.3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix00017 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)