Talk:Evan Almighty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Photos of the ark
I took some photos of the ark in Crozet yesterday, and once I get those processed, I'll post a photo for the article. Also, do you think an additional photo of Waynesboro dressed as "Huntsville" would be a bit over the top for the article? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] But God said...
"I will establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all bodily creatures be destroyed by the waters of a flood; there shall not be another flood to devastate the earth." Genesis 9:11
If anyone knows how the movie plans to tackle this, I think it would be a very good thing to add to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.213.222 (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
- I think I read somewhere that it had something to do with a dam, but I can't confirm that. I'll wait until the film is released and I'm able to find out for myself. --Nehrams2020 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It was me who said it was a dam. I saw a screener for it about 5 weeks ago. You will just have to take my word for it. Unless anyone else who saw it early can add in. Coolpepper43 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It probably has to do with more localized flood in the movie, not one of the whole earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.142 (talk • contribs)
Ahhhh, yeah, God said a lot of things in the Old Testament (e.g., that the Jewish people could take the virgins from the people that they slaughtered and use them basically as sex slaves--ie. they could marry them or dismiss them as they wanted, regardless of the desires of the women). I wouldn't count on anyone, even a theologian, trying to make sense of all the bunk in the Old Testament. I haven't seen the movie, but they could always just do what most Christians do: ignore the parts they don't like. -Justin
Keep religion bashing off of here. God doesn't create the flood in the movie, as has been stated. 74.114.211.12 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, God, does not actually create the flood, but he did know it was going to happen. Why, in his infinite power, did he not choose to stop it himself? Why did God not intervene when this Congressman (the one played by John Goodman, I cannot remember the character's name) was planning to build a cheap dam to cut costs? Furthermore, why did God allow for the dam to burst in the first place? What would have happened if Evan failed? I find it odd that despite his supposed universe- creating power, he cannot stop a local flood without human assistance. Jason Keyes 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not the venue for such discussions, since this thread is not related to improvement of the article. This is not a chat board about the topic, but a page to discuss improvements to the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Jason Keyes 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
...to devestate the earth... how bout the earth is a mite larger then the flood in this movie is capable of devastating. No theological discourse needed. And step away from your Bible. For our safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.186.174 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
God didn't cause the flood. Congressman Long allowed a bad dam to be built and God know it would collapse. He just warned Evan.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys DO realize this movie was to help people understand exactly how hard things were for Noah. It was suppost to put the story into a modern view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.150.9 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Similar to the The Santa Clause
In the previews, Steve Carell appearance changes to what most people think Noah looked like. In "The Santa Clause" (1994), Tim Allen appearance changed to the most popular image people have of Santa Claus, (St. Nicholas).204.80.61.110 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk
- one of the reasons why the movie's a stinker. one of the "funnier" gags, was already done years earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.125.158 (talk • contribs)
Well It is similar in some ways but I think most people will not notice the similarity Onepiece226 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226
[edit] Animal Welfare Issues
There were a lot of problems with the numbers and types of animals used in this movie. I read that two of the chimpanzees were surrendered to a sanctuary related to animal cruelty complaints. I think that this should be part of this article. I'll research this to get sources but I wondered if anyone else heard about this? Bob98133 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You would be the first. Get some reliable sources before you add such a thing to the article, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I came up with - it would go under Animal Welfare Concerns, and also maybe move the line about AHA oversight into this section. Let me know if there are any problems with posting this. Thanks Bob98133 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Evan Almighty and Universal Pictures were accused by animal rights group PETA of using animals who had been previously abused in the production of this movie. Two chimpanzees who appear in the movie, Cody and Sable, were surrendered by their owner to settle a lawsuit that documented allegations of beatings and mistreatment [1]. In an online interview, Director Tom Shadyac said of PETA’s criticisms “They’re not wrong. There’s a certain amount of hypocrisy whenever you work with animals, even to show, which we hope we’re showing, that respect of all of God’s creation… I don’t know. I respect their criticism.[2]” PETA was also critical of Birds & Animals Unlimited, the primary animal supplier to the film, for alleged serious and continuing violations of the US Animal Welfare Act, including failure to comply with veterinary care requirements and failure to provide shelter from heat and sunlight, which PETA details and claims it can document [3].
[edit] This movie is going to bomb
Evan Almighty is what you name a direct-to-DVD sequal to Bruce Almighty. If they named this Noahs Ark or something people would actually watch it. Epic Fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.175.153 (talk • contribs)
- Do you have any contribution to the article? Also, remember to sign your comments. :D Legendotphoenix 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please post this "review" elsewhere such as IMDB or a movie-related site. And fix your spelling and punctuation too. Calmsavior 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know how the opening paragraph can claim that "The movie... performed poorly at the box office" less than three days after it's initial release? Yeah, you can speculate with a pretty good degree of accuracy how a movie is going to do based on it's opening weekend, but it is still just *speculation*. -Justin
[edit] Controversy
You know how Bruce Almighty was bannded in Egypt? Has anyone ever heard of similar stuff about this movie? IT should be added to the article. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet. All I've heard at this point about the movie post-release is that an AP reviewer panned it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia tagging
I've tagged the "Religious allusions" and "Trivia" sections with the {{trivia}} tag. I have a feeling that at least some of the "religious allusions" section could possibly be converted to prose and incorporated, but I think that the "Trivia" section probably should just get axed.
By the way, if anyone thinks it's worthwhile, I have a photo of the Wayne Theatre with the "40 year old Virgin Mary" marquee. Might be worth including. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia removal
Considering that trivia on top of trivia is being added, I'm to the point where it needs to go. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all, so if we can't work it into the main body in a day or so, it's going. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Box Office and Critical Reaction
This is just a suggestion, but it wouldn't it be appropriate to have an expanded critical reaction section to the movie as well as initial box office intake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.50.66 (talk • contribs)
- I agree. Especially because the current Box Office section does not seem to be impartial or written in the style of an encyclopedic article, at least to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.91.99 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Contradictory
The article says it reached #3 in the box offices, but it's listed as a #1 at the bottom. Which is it?--209.243.31.233 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, so I tagged it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I got this information from the IMDB top ten lists, and various newspapers and on.Nocarsgo 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could you cite these? I've placed {{fact}} tags where I'd like to see citations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was meant to mean that it opened at number one in its first weekend and then in third place in the second week. --Nehrams2020 08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- http://imdb.com/chart/ is where i got it.. but then it changed.
- It's updated every week so that's why the information would have changed. --Nehrams2020 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then I propose waiting until that page stabilizes a bit. Otherwise, we'll continue to have problems like this... SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's updated every week so that's why the information would have changed. --Nehrams2020 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- http://imdb.com/chart/ is where i got it.. but then it changed.
- I think it was meant to mean that it opened at number one in its first weekend and then in third place in the second week. --Nehrams2020 08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could you cite these? I've placed {{fact}} tags where I'd like to see citations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I got this information from the IMDB top ten lists, and various newspapers and on.Nocarsgo 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the film's going to switch from position to position in the top ten (if it even makes it this week). I'd say to focus on using boxofficemojo who keeps its position each week of its release, revenue, and total gross. That's what I used for the source. If we were to keep using this IMDB page, eventually Evan Almighty wouldn't even show up on it anymore. --Nehrams2020 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GAC
Throughout the day today I added multiple sources and several sections of information. I nominated the article at GAC, so please look the article over and see if there are any problems before another editor reviews the article which could be over the next few days or weeks. I'll make sure the box office information and RT numbers are updated and will add a DVD release section as soon as more information becomes available. Good work to everybody that contributed to the article and added sources. --Nehrams2020 05:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GAN
I conducted the review this morning and found no serious issues whatsoever, it met the criteria for a GA quite easily, so it's been promoted. The Rambling Man 08:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wording
In the first paragraph, could the writer have meant climactic flood scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.73 (talk • contribs)
- Seems likely enough to make the change, which I did. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great work guys!
I don't usually put comments like this in articles, but besides the lack of some much needed pictures, this article is amazing, truly one of the best film articles I have ever seen! You should all be proud :) I hereby give the following barnstar to anyone that has ever edited this article!
The Original Barnstar | ||
JayKeaton officially grants the Original Barnstar to (your name will appear here) for all the top grade work this user has done for the Evan Almighty article. |
If you would like to place this barnstar on your user page please copy the entire line of bold text below and paste it straight onto your userpage!
{{subst:The Original Barnstar|[[User:JayKeaton|JayKeaton]] officially grants the [[Wikipedia:Barnstars/General|Original Barnstar]] to ~~~ for all the top grade work this user has done for the [[Evan Almighty]] article.}}
Good work, you have truly earned this barnstar! JayKeaton 14:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why all the focus on animal rights?
When I watched this film I saw a great retelling of a Christian theme. Why is the only thing discussed here animal rights, rather than Christianity as well? DurotarLord (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I added information from what was available, and there was a lot about the animal rights. If you can find more sources that speak about the Christian theme, then you can be sure to add something, as it will surely improve the article. I haven't found too much information, but I'd imagine there has to be something out there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I believe that some of the material contained within the Controversy section is innacurate. My main query lies with the paragraph "Also, many people of various religions have pointed out that God promised in the Bible to never let a flood loose upon the Earth again, something that the film neglects to explain why God's breaking his promise."
I understood that a global flood was promised not to reoccur, whereas the flood in the film is a flood of far lesser extent. Just curious. 61.68.214.62 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That statement is totally unsourced, and as you are demonstrating, it is controversial. I'm removing it from the article, unless someone wants to come up with a reliable source for it in the next ten seconds. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)