Talk:Juno (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juno (film) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] juno

Can we really describe the movie as a "black comedy"? It deals with some heavy subject matter, but overall, it's got a pretty life-affirming, make-the-best of it vibe throughout. Doesn't really fit the typical black comedy mood. (I caught an early screening last night.) I'm going to remove the "black" for now -- if someone has a compelling reason to restore it, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.170.122 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Release in other countries

Is it also planned to show this movie in England or in other European countries? When it was such a big sucess... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.71.170 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

The summary is a word for word copy of the one that is on Yahoo Movies. Shouldn't it be edited so that it isn't so obvious? EpochDarkleaf 00:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Roman goddess Juno

Has the producer made any quotes about the name referanceing the Roman mother goddess Juno? I'm pretty sure thats where it gets the name. Should we put that in? Juno (mythology) --69.153.16.184 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sourcing stating that, then maybe. But without a reliable source, absolutely not. DurinsBane87 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just watch the movie where Juno says she was named after Zeus' hot wife. 160.39.221.87 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting coincidence...

There's a Korean movie from 2005 called "Jenny, Juno" that is also a comedy about teenage pregnancy. Although in that movie the boy's name is Juno. http://www.dvdasian.com/_e/Korea/product/18863/Jenny_Juno_Region_3_DVD_.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.116.9 (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well,also the first scene is similar that the girls found out their pregnancies with the testers. yes I agree every pregnancies in these days always begin with the tester. it is weird enough to mention in the section as the name is similar, and the opening scene is same. well you might make a movie about the teen pregnancy that begin with some other scene. but it should be mentioned in the section as 1. name is same/similar, 2. the 1st scene is same/similar, 3. the beginning scenes are similar that with the animation effects. The rest of stories are quite different, to me that is because of the difference between the culture of each society - US and Korea. To Korean, it is natural for a girl to decide to raise the baby by herself even she might have a lot of trouble with her life. in US, I believe the most of girl would choose the adaption rather than risking a lots of chances and funs in their life.

Urutapu, you mentioned about the testers, but what about your opinion for the animation effects of both movie's opening scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.84.9 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Korean Movie isn't the only one similar, also from 2005 is the US TV Movie Mom at Sixteen, main character name is Jacey: IMDB, Wikipedia page--Vampire Hunter AlucardNoir 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlucardNoir (talk • contribs)

[edit] Headlines

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budget

I highly doubt the budget was 25 million dollars. Can we get a source for that? ChesterG (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the line says $2.5M, which strikes me as ridiculous. There are some reasonably well known actors in the movie, and unless they worked for free, their combined salaries alone would top that. The line cited MovieMojo, but that site doesn't show the production budget. I've removed the $2.5M figure until someone can provide a source.Prebys (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen sources that say $7.5M. [1] [2] [3]. Some blogs say 2.5 but I think they got that number from Wikipedia. MahangaTalk 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's amazing how fast an uncited Wikipedia "fact" can propagate. I find no support at all for that $2.5M figure. On the other hand, the LA times is a credible source, so I wouldn't have a problem with putting that $7.5M figure in, although I still find it hard to believe. Prebys (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
imdb also says $2.5M, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.92.186 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This weeks Entertainment Weekly listed the budget at $6.5 million in the cover story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.36.217 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

It's not PURE comedy, I would call it a "Dramedy" 75.165.96.59 (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When is a comedy ever PURE? Better to avoid neologisms and aim for a higher quality of writing that can be more widely understood by explaining the nature of the comedy. -- Horkana (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I expanded the plot summary to encompass the dominant story arc. Obviously there are some plot devices and subtexts I left out as well as some of the more idiosyncratic features that are better experienced within the film. I feel like the descriptions surround Paulie Bleeker strand are the weakest, but I also remember them the least, so please expand if possible. Are there standards or norms about how plot summaries should be written and how can this section be improved? Madcoverboy (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:FilmPlot for more info, and read the entire guideline of which it is part. The plot section is 1000 words long, which is 300-600 words too long. Also, the Characters section goes against guidelines too. Basically, there's too much in-universe information and not enough about the filmmaking and critical response, as the article stands now. Check it out. --Melty girl (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section seems really long to me. It should be a SUMMARY, not a detailed retelling of every event in the movie. Ebolamunkee (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the plot section is way to long/detailed. Dp76764 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section has been shortened and is now very close to the recommended 400-700 words (WP:FilmPlot). It's the Characters section that needs to go in its entirety -- the section is basically Plot section, Part 2. And the writing is problematic in so many ways, mainly violating WP:NPOV. --Melty girl (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I also think the plot is way too long. This storyline is not that complicated and can be summed up in a few sentences. "Sixteen-year-old Juno McGuff discovers she is pregnant by longtime friend and passive suitor Paulie Bleeker. After wrestling with her options and seeking the advice of her family, friends and the father, she decides to have the baby adopted by what seems like the perfect storybook couple. But as the pregnancy develops, she learns that no romance is perfect, even her own." How hard is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.99.11 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the plot is still lengthy - certainly there is some more fancruft that could be excised. However, WP:FilmPlot recommends these sections be between 500-700 words. Your meta-summary might be an appropriate lead or overview of the plot, however, it should still be comprehensive and include the ending and any spoilers. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated...still under 400 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.99.11 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:FilmPlot recommends these sections be between 400 (not 500) -700 words. I think today's revision is on the right track, but at 399 words, has a little room to grow... which it undoubtedly will, due to high interest in the film right now. --Melty girl (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I like the new summary as well because it incorporates more of the Paulie story line. However, I believe it de-emphasized some parts of the Lorings that should be reintroduced. A few lines would do. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"As a previous potential birth mother had "gotten cold feet," Vanessa is awkward and nervous around Juno...." That's a pretty big bite of speculation there. Maybe they didn't get along because of their obvious personality differences. Or just their cultural backgrounds and upbringing. Or maybe it was because Vanessa was unable to have children of her own and couldn't relate to a pregnant Juno. Point is, it could be any of these things or none of them. It's not germane to the plot so I think we should consider removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.99.11 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you even seen the film? It says that -IN- the film. It's not speculation. It's -PART- of the MOVIE. Metty (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the film. Twice. And know the part to which you're referring. Vanessa says that they haven't told others about the adoption because a previous birth mother got "cold feet" and backed out of the deal (Juno: "You should have gone to China, I hear they give them away like free iPods"). That's not enough to draw conclusions about Vanessa's behavior. There's no exposition to back this up, it was simply something said in dialog. Not fact. In dialog Mark also says that he's looking forward to being a father. Do you think that is fact as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.185.213 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I never took it as the birth mother who got cold feet... with the way that Vanessa looks at Mark, its my belief that it was HE who ended up getting cold feet and decided to call it off. But Vanessa, being the very kind person she is, didnt want to throw that in his face. It could just be me, but thats how I understood it. Since there is a discrepency about this, perhaps that definitive sentance should not be in the plot. It would be best to edit it after the DVD is out, and there is a director commentary, or there are more one on one discussions with the screenwriter and such. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fancruft in plot

Per several WP policies (WP:FilmPlot, WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:Fancruft), I'm increasingly worried with the amount of close textual reading and analysis that is showing up the plot summary and list of characters. It is not our job as encyclopedists to analyze and explain what happened in the work, only to describe it. Per WP:NOT#PLOT:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

While many people are likely to moan and scream about the loss of detail and appeal to something like WP:SPOILER, (indeed the expanded plot summary that I first published may well have suffered from it) I am going to start to extract the close analysis and explanations from the article. We should be focusing on critical response and production, not on choice of adjectives in describing a plot . We need to be vigilant against this overweening fancruft as this movie is certain to attract increased attention as it wins awards. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Plot" section is actually in much better shape now that you made that big edit, and it shouldn't need much more work. In contrast, I think that the entire "Cast and characters" section should go -- that's what's still fancruft. It reiterates the "Plot" section and gives unnecessary detail. If you refer to the entire style guideline for WP:MOSFILM (of which WP:FilmPlot is but one section), you'll find that there is no recommendation for a "Characters" section, which merely reiterates the fictional story, but instead there is "Cast and crew information," which should detail the real world account of casting decisions and so forth. Another major section that's missing here is "Background/Production". Obviously, these sections are harder to write, because they take research beyond simply watching and retelling the movie, and citations will be needed. But that's what will make this article more balanced and less fancrufty. You are certainly right that this article will have to be constantly monitored against people wanting to add every detail of the plot back to the "Plot" section... and to the "Characters" section if it's not removed. It's harsh, but I would suggest removing that section in its entirety. --Melty girl (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most Successful Movie Ever?

"one of the most successful and profitable films ever"

The article states that the film grossed $52 million in its first month, which may be true, but it then says that it's on its way to making $100 million, which is speculation, and the link to Box Office Mojo shows that it's grossed more like $54 million. In any case, the statement above is pure exaggeration. Even if the movie did make £100 million, it would be overstating the case to call it "one of the most successful and profitable films ever".Liquidcow (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Next time, feel free to just remove unsourced speculation like this without having to discuss it. (I just removed it.) As a side note, this article is in great flux right now, so it's hard to keep up with every edit, but it will probably slow down later in the year. --Melty girl (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok sorry about that, I don't usually discuss every single edit I make, but I thought I might be misunderstanding something about the site that was linked to. Never looked at Box Office Mojo before. Thanks. Liquidcow (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries! Just wanted to encourage you to go for it. --Melty girl (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast & Characters fancruft

There have been a few reverts back and forth between keeping and dropping the character description section. I believe I share an opinion with Melty girl that the section is unencyclopedic, in-universe fancruft that should be stricken from the article. If you can make a cogent argument grounded in legitimate Wiki-policy for keeping it, please discuss it here, otherwise I will revert edits that put it back in. I am dumping the body of the text here now. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ellen Page as Juno MacGuff: A sarcastic sixteen-year-old, Juno makes the biggest decision of her life, premeditated since the passing of a note in years' past, when she loses her virginity to her best friend Paulie Bleeker on a recliner in her basement. When she finds out she's pregnant, she decides to give the baby to the Lorings, an affluent suburban couple. Juno has a love of horror films and punk music; she herself plays a Harmony guitar in a band with Bleeker. Her favorite bands are Patti Smith, Iggy and the Stooges and The Runaways. On one occasion it is implied that she is on psychotropic meds. Juno's strength is also her weakness - she is smarter than most of those around her and regards adults as equals rather than authority figures. Throughout the movie, she is on a quest to find out if two people can actually be happy and in love for the rest of their lives; this mission is further spurred after she watches a seemingly perfect marriage fall apart before her very eyes. Juno realizes by the end of the film that she loves Paulie Bleeker.
  • Michael Cera as Paulie Bleeker: Paulie Bleeker is a gangly Jewish track runner who spends most of his time in tiny gold running shorts and sweatbands, running with an anonymous Greek chorus of high school runners who appear in every section of the film divided by the seasons. He is in love with Juno and after she casually ignores their newfound romantic feelings for each other after their first sexual encounter, he considers his heart broken. Bleeker rekindles his relationship with Juno in the final weeks of her pregnancy, after she realizes the depths of her true feelings for him.
  • Jason Bateman as Mark Loring: Mark is a failed musician who gave up his rock and roll lifestyle to become a composer of commercial jingles. He and his wife Vanessa have little in common and he resents that Vanessa has confined his stuff to one room in the basement of their McMansion; he remarks that his entire life is underground. He loves punk music and gore films; these hobbies help him strike up a close relationship with Juno. As Juno spends more time than is appropriate with Mark, he realizes that he enjoys Juno's company much more than his wife's. After sharing an intimate slow dance with Juno, Mark reveals he is leaving Vanessa. When he begins to tell her what his plans are, it is implied that he wants to continue spending time with Juno after the divorce. As Juno argues with him over his decision, Mark realizes that although he and Juno seem to share a mutual attraction, her extreme maturity and wit has blinded him to the fact she is still very young. Mark later reveals to both Vanessa and Juno that his choice to leave Vanessa isn't just because the couple no longer have anything in common; he says that a new baby would mark the end of his youth and diminish any chance of him regaining his music career. Mark and Vanessa's marriage ultimately ends because of Mark's failure to mature, and Vanessa's smothering of her husband's interests.
  • Jennifer Garner as Vanessa Loring: Vanessa is a yuppie career woman with a WASPish personality. She believes her one purpose in life is to become a mother although she has been unsuccessful so far. Juno doesn't get along with Vanessa at first because she finds Vanessa neurotic and unfair to her husband. Vanessa tries to keep Mark's hobbies as simply hobbies because she feels that, should they evolve into long-term interests, they would subtract from his contributions to the family. Juno also resents that Vanessa finds it hard to trust that she will follow through on the adoption, but she begins to sympathize after she finds out that the Lorings had previously tried to adopt and the deal fell through. Vanessa unknowingly wins Juno over when the teenager spies her at the mall, playing happily with a toddler. Vanessa's desire to be a mother is seen in full effect when she is invited to feel Juno's belly; she fails to feel the baby kick and, taking it as a sign she will be a bad mother, comes close to tears. Juno's belief that Vanessa will be a perfect mother is only confirmed when, encouraged by Juno, Vanessa kneels and speaks tenderly to the baby, finally feeling it move. When Mark reveals that he doesn't want to be a father because he doesn't know if he's ready, Vanessa tells Mark that she will never become a mother if she has to sit around and wait for him to "become Kurt Cobain." After their collaborative divorce, Vanessa ultimately ends up adopting Juno's son as a single mother.
  • Olivia Thirlby as Leah: Leah is Juno's best girlfriend. The friendship seems odd at first because she and Juno are social opposites: Juno is somewhat of an offbeat loner and Leah is a popular cheerleader. She supports Juno throughout her pregnancy, from helping Juno tell her parents about the baby to even being present during the ultrasound and delivery. She is sexually attracted to certain male teachers, especially the greying, portly geometry teacher, who, at first glance, holds no allure.
  • J.K. Simmons as Mac MacGuff: Mac is Juno's loving blue-collar father. His first wife, Juno's mother, left ten years earlier, and he is now married to Brenda, by whom he has a second daughter, Liberty Belle. He found his passion working with heating and air conditioning (HVAC) and motors. Mac is initially upset with his daughter's pregnancy, but supports her decision to give the child up for adoption.
  • Allison Janney as Brenda MacGuff: Brenda ("Bren") is Juno's sharp-tongued stepmother who owns a nail salon and is obsessed with dogs, but cannot own one because of Juno's allergies. She can be unusually harsh verbally (such as with the unfortunate ultrasound technician who says something Bren doesn't like). She and Juno often argue, but it is Brenda who escorts her stepdaughter to ultrasounds and is the girl's delivery coach at the time of labor. Brenda shows herself to also be quite insightful, in warning that Juno's relationship with Mark is inappropriate, long before the conflict between Mark and Vanessa escalates.
  • Rainn Wilson as Rollo: Rollo is the brash, slang-speaking clerk at Honey and Milk, the local convenience store. He harasses Juno as she takes three pregnancy tests, which all turn out positive.
  • Daniel Clark as Steve Rendazo: Steve is a jock who teases Juno. Juno says that the typical jock problem is that they're supposed to date popular girls like Leah and make fun of weird girls like Juno, but secretly lust after the weird girls. This theory obviously holds true for Steve, who gazes longingly at Juno after he leaves her in the wake of an insult, and later, looks pained at the sight of Juno and Bleeker kissing.

[edit] Twin Cities?

I didn't gather from watching the film that it is set in a Twin Cities suburb. There is some vague evidence in favor of Kankakee County, IL (two references to "Manteno"), but the best one can say is that Juno is set in the Midwest. Bkalafut (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer: It was filmed in Vancouver, BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.217.25 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Filmed in" and "set in" are two very different things. Dp76764 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glacier Valley is clearly said in the film to be in St. Cloud. So, that plus the Manteno reference would seem to put it in the Twin Cities area. Inturnaround (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The town in which they live and the movie takes place is clearly stated to be Dancing Cloud, Minnesota. It's a fictional town located about an hour's drive from St. Cloud. Both of these facts are cited in the movie by lines of dialogue. (To be more specific, I'd need the script or to go see it yet again to write down the lines.) Bluejena

Evidence of the T.C. setting: In chem lab, the couple opposite Juno and Paulie are in a fight because the guy visited his brother at college in Mankato; St. Cloud is explicitly mentioned; the urn in the hallway is said to be from Stillwater; Juno mentions the Ridgedale Center. Pretty clearly a MN setting.Choiniej (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been settled, and is now fully explained in the article. (Filmed in BC, set in MN.) No need to debate it any longer. --Melty girl (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comic featured in film -- Fake?

Is that 'Most Fruitful Yuki' Japanese comic that Bateman's character has in the film real? From a simple Google search, it seems it was invented for the movie, an ebay search only turned up promotional T-shirts made for the film. I guess I answered my own question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.40.130 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural impact

I don't know if anyone wants to add a "cultural impact" section in the future, but according to a newspaper article from the Vancouver Province, there's been a sharp increase in sales of hamburger phones due to this movie -- 759% increase on eBay, in fact. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrested Development

Could the line "I'm not ready to be a pop-pop" possibly be a reference to the television show Arrested Development, which starred both Michael Cera and Jason Bateman? The word "pop-pop" was a running gag throughout the show. -- 144.118.202.64 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. I call one of my Granddad's Pop-Pops. It's a fairly commonly used phrase. I doubt it was a reference at all. Metty (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be a potential reference, but unless we've got a proper source it's just speculation.--71.220.37.124 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a lot of sources on Google (...but are they credible???): 1, 2, 3, etc. (I just Googled "arrested development pop-pop juno") -- 144.118.202.64 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations

I added the winners to nominations that Juno didn't win. There was no distinguishment between nominations and losses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.74.227 (talk • contribs) 15:34, February 10, 2008

[edit] Lovewhole vandalism

A user named Lovewhole has been vandalising this page a lot. They need to be warned or blocked; they deleted the entire plot, put random pictures into the article, and changed the cast list. - 99.237.9.80 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Reported to Admins and a block requested. Dp76764 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cast is wrong again this evening - 14 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.135.170 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Setting

The film is set in Minnesota. There are clear geographical references in the film, and I have also sourced this information. Twice now, I've had this non-contentious fact removed from the article without explanation, and have added the source in an attempt to make sure this doesn't happen again. Settings are important - it's a form of US-centrism to simply assume that everyone on the planet knows where (or even roughly where) the film is set. These things must be noted and established. The article is already categorized as being set in Minnesota, so why is anyone removing this information? I'm honestly curious. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the deletion [4] is inappropriate (marked as minor, without explanation).--Patrick (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can show that the Minnesota setting is significant to the story (like living in NYC during 911 could be), then it is non-notable detail. The Plot section is not intended to include every detail of the story. It's possible it is important, but after seeing the movie myself, I'd be inclined to find a reliable source to back it up. It's not like its Fargo where the climate and people stereotypes contribute to the story. I don't know the reason why the other editor deleted it, but that's my argument for leaving it out. Hope this helps.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] trivium

I dont have an IMDb account, so ill put a trivium here, and just wait if it gets picked up: The couple which is adopting the baby is living in St. Clouds, the town where in The Cider House Rules the abortion clinic and orphanage was located. -- Eiland (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate BD Cover?

BD: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=712 DVD: http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/juno.html

Can someone confirm if this is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.48.56 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The two-disc DVD version of Juno has the same cover as the Blu Ray.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Chaste" as a descriptor

The adjective "chaste" is being challenged as POV. I contend that it's simply an interesting adjective that accurately describes the kiss in question. It was non-sexual, non-passionate--in other words, the classic definition of "chaste." The word is an interesting adjective, nothing more and nothing less. There seems to be a bit of a war on using truly interesting adjectives across the project. I'm not sure why this is. Please explain to me how describing a clearly innocent kiss as "chaste" is somehow POV. Bellwether BC 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "chaste" that I found states "1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous. 2. Virgin. 3. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate." These are the meanings of the word "chaste," and they cannot be applied accurately here. The film ends with the two becoming a couple of some kind, with them kissing -- how can it be implied that the romance between these two is definitely chaste/celibate/"clearly innocent"? We simply don't know that. And who's even to say that the kiss shown was "clearly innocent" or "non-sexual"? That may be how you took it, but others might take it as deeply romantic or as an indicator that they are sexually involved to some degree now, etc. All we can really state for sure is that it was a kiss -- anything else is interpretation, and that's point of view. My objection is not about your selection of an "interesting" adjective -- it's about your selection of a loaded adjective, and one that's extremely loaded given that the couple in question are teenagers whose first sexual experience produced a baby that they just gave up. To then decide that they're "chaste" when you simply can't know for sure what they are, is highly interpretive, perhaps even implying a moral to this story or an ending that's not presented definitively onscreen, and that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia plot section. --Melty girl (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You conveniently left out the very next definition (at least according to dictionary.com): "free from obscenity; decent." It was clearly, without question, this type of kiss. But, by all means, feel free to purge this interesting word from the article. WP needs less interesting adjectives, which is the point of NPOV, right? Bellwether BC 08:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This changes nothing about my argument; I just didn't want to belabor the point with too many definitions, and the fourth is less important that the preceding three. But everything I said still stands; who is to say that this kiss was "free from obscenity; decent"? That's pretty interpretive. And "chaste" is simply a loaded word, particularly in the context of this movie's subject matter and to sum up the ending. --Melty girl (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And, for the record, I didn't initially insert this word. I just thought the deletion of it was slightly banal, and made the article a bit less interesting, and thus reinserted it. Bellwether BC 08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine; but three editors disagreed with your repeated re-insertions of it, as well as your interpretation of why it should be there. And then you started this discussion. --Melty girl (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Su-Chin

I added this to the plot part:

She opts for an abortion, but Su-Chin, a lone pro-life protester and Juno's school friend along with an unpleasant ambiance in the abortion clinic trigger a last-minute change of heart.

It was removed with the explanation "rem unnecessary detail".

I think that it is not so unnecessary. Su-Chin is this film's only direct reference to the pro-life movement, and since this is a film about juvenile pregnancy, it deserves a mention. And if this is mentioned, then the unpleasant clinic should be mentioned, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No... honestly it is unnecessary detail. Simply stating that she opted for abortion but changed her mind is all that is needed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree: even though the abortion element has resulted in some controversy, unless a credible source specifically addresses that Su-Chin plays a significant role in Juno's decision, there doesn't seem to be enough reason to mention her here. Such a source may ultimately be included in the article — and that would be great — but at this point we'd just be adding unnecessary detail to the plot description. The description that Juno considers an abortion enough to visit the clinic (and changes her mind) is enough for now.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see reliable sources about the importance of other plot details. Actually, no, i wouldn't.
How silly of me was it to try to edit an article about a movie.
Whatever. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is just my and Queerbubbles opinion. Feel free to weigh in with a counter-argument. I'm just guarding against a plot description that is laden with every detail imaginable, making actually viewing the movie unnecessary. The Plot section should convey enough information to give the reader the gist of the story, while supporting other sections of the article (such as Reception and Themes).
Jim Dunning | talk 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My problem is two fold... 1) to add in that detail above all others is pretty much POV pushing and 2) the way the detail was added was extremely awkward and didnt flow correctly. Thats my 2 cents. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's unnecessary detail. Yes, it's about teen pregnancy, but in terms of this fictional story's important plot points, the crux of the story just isn't about her visit to the abortion clinic or her choice. It's about her emotional changes during the pregnancy, her relationships, the adoption process, etc. The character and movie just did not spend much time or emotion on that decision, so the finer details about the very brief clinic scenes (outside and inside) are not necessary in the Plot section.--Melty girl (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought of forgetting about this page, but despite my cockiness the three of you have been nice enough to write these long replies, a thing which i very seriously appreciate.
Let me just say that i meant what i said: Discussions of movie plots is a Wikipedian sub-culture in which i just shouldn't stick my nose.
Thanks again. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast(ing) section

Reposted thread from my talk page:

Oh, and with the cast - see WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. It actually commends the use of actors' names within the plot prose without a listed cast section using the example Tenebrae (film). As I see it, all the actors listed in the cast right now are already bracketed within the plot so there's no need to re-list them. I'm going to re-delete the section but feel free to bring up any further issues with me. —97198 talk 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your take on the guideline. Yes, it commends the use of actors' names within the plot without a listed cast section, but it also offers many other ways to approach the issue, concluding, "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." I think it should stay, and hopefully someone will expand the section with real world casting information, as you have expanded the themes section. --Melty girl (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I added back the Cast section with expansion from another part you deleted later, about Cut Chemist's cameo -- I found a source for it. So along with that, I added casting info about Ellen Page, as per an alternate style recommendation made at WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. I hope that others will now expand the section with sourced, real world production info. --Melty girl (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was going to add a Production section with the subheadings Development, Filming and Music or something along those lines - I've got over fifty useful links at the top of my sandbox which I was going to use to revamp the article and make it decent. Hopefully then we can incorporate casting details into the development of the film and we can get rid of the casting section. Anyhow, I'm probably speaking a little soon because we'll have to see how it looks then (when I eventually get round to it, which will hopefully be very soon) so we can make a more educated decision. —97198 talk 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you look at the new version of the Casting section? It is formatted as per WP:MOSFILM, has real world information (about the actors, not the characters), and should not be gotten rid of. It should either stand on its own, as it does now, or become a subsection of Production, but either way, its new format is fine. You may want to read that whole section of the the guideline more carefully, because it seems like you only acknowledge the beginning of it. --Melty girl (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, because you seem to be repeating what I said exactly above you but saying as if it's your own suggestion. And I'm also not sure what you seem to think I haven't read in MOSFILM. I quote: "The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others. Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate..." Oh well. How about I dawdle around in the article when I get around to it and people who want to whinge about it can do so when changes have been made :) —97198 talk 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you leave me very confused. I don't know if you've read my edit summaries, but I've been quoting WP:MOSFILM all along just as you have -- but we've had different interpretations of the relevant section and how it should be applied. You kept deleting the section, saying that WP:MOSFILM is against listing the cast, which it is not; I kept restoring it, saying that WP:MOSFILM allows for a list, and that we should be encouraging the section to grow instead of getting rid of it. When I restored the section a second time, I renamed it and enhanced the content and format -- yet immediately afterwards, you still said it should be deleted! You did not acknowledge the changes I'd made -- I added "behind the scenes production information" as per WP:MOSFILM -- so that's why I asked you in my last comment if you'd actually looked at my changes, because I was worried that you were determined to delete the section, despite new, good content. Then you respond that it was all your idea in the first place? Well, I don't understand what you're on about, but I will just watch the progress of the article. Sigh... Melty girl (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah well. Misunderstanding of the century, perhaps? ;) —97198 talk 07:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation dump

Some references that could be used. I'm sure there is a lot more in print-only sources on databases like NewsBank. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Diablo Cody: From Ex-Stripper to A-Lister - already sourced in the article, but a good resource for fleshing out Production from the writing phase to how Cody sold the script, etc. --Melty girl (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography section doesn't make sense -- link included isn't a source for this article

I'm not clear on the point of the bibliography. Isn't a bibliography for primary sources that the article is based upon, usually books or at least extensive articles of major importance? The link to the short Jason Reitman bio page that's in the Bibliography is not a primary reference for this article -- it's not even cited anywhere -- so I don't see why it should be included in a Bibliography for this article. At most, it seems like it belongs in the External links section, and even then, it might be more appropriate for the Jason Reitman article's External links section instead. Please explain the rationale for this section. --Melty girl (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for placing something in the bibliography section is to include at least one item since the notes section was already questioned as for the need for a sub-division of the references section. The way Wikipedia has identified a References section does not clearly identify what is actually a set of footnotes or endnotes along with a full bibliographical record or notation. Bibliographies list resources that are useful to understanding the topic and may or may not be directly quoted from but can also be used in gaining background knowledge. FWIW, I just noted that you have reverted again. That's it, have a nice day. You don't need help. Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
Check the edit summary: I was not the editor who reverted -- I was waiting for your response here. There is no need to be sarcastic, especially when you're making a false accusation. In response to your idea about the Bibliography, you're not using the terms/sections in the customary way that most arts Wikipedia pages do. And that's probably why JimDunning reverted your changes. As I said above, your Reitman link isn't a source for this article, so it shouldn't really be listed in a Bibliography section. Your edit summary indicated that you wanted to add more to the bibliography, so if you would like to discuss your ideas further in order to get more feedback, I'm listening. --Melty girl (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the Bibliography entry. At the time I did so there was no "ongoing discussion on the Talk page" since Melty girl was the only who had posted a comment about the section. Melty girl, I'm not minimizing the value of your comment when I say there was no discussion: it takes two to discuss and there were no other posts there. Since I agreed with your point of the time and all your points since then, I changed the article content. Not the end of the world and certainly not a violation of "WP:AGF". I apologize if not leaving a detailed explanation on the Talk page caused a problem, but I figured my edit summary provided my viewpoint and intent.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My error, please accept my apologies as it was neither meant to be snarky but simply that I wasn't prepared to provide a longer discussion if it was not necessary. Here is my reasoning:
If you wish to continue to discuss the referencing issue, I will suggest that the discussion continue on either your talk page or mine. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
I appreciate your dedication and your credentials, but your +11,501K answer was much too much for the specific questions at hand here. I do not wish to discuss this whole huge topic with you one-on-one as you suggest, though if you want to try to push for clearer guidelines at WikiProject Films or for Wikipedia in general, I would encourage you to do so. I am going to try again to discuss on the limited questions at hand in this article -- may I ask you to try again with a more direct answer? Specifically, can you leave out anything to do with citation formats (which were not at issue here), as well as your credentials, which are now established, and instead simply stick to the limited issues at hand in this article and in this discussion?
OK. Here's how I see what has happened here so far:
  1. You added the subheading "Notes" to the "References" section, but since there was no second section, I saw that as redundant at this point and reverted it. In fact, I would not have minded one bit if you renamed the "References" itself to be called "Notes". I just felt that a main heading and a subheading were not yet needed when the section itself had no subsections. All your library experience notwithstanding, currently the official guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources describes the footnotes section headings "Notes", "Footnotes" and "References" as interchangeable; so both "References" and "Notes" were not needed for what was only a single list of footnotes.
  2. Next, you added back the "Notes" subsection, and created a second subsection called "Bibliography" below it with only one entry, a link to an extremely brief bio of director Jason Reitman. At this point, I began this discussion, suggesting that this link was not really helpful for this film's article, and therefore, wondered why a "Bibliography" section was necessary. In hindsight, it now seems to me that you may have been more interested in establishing your idea of a proper "References" section with a "Notes" subsection and a "Bibliography" subsection, than in whether this Wikipedia article was actually ready for that format. I've looked at your other examples of this format and they look truly excellent, but those "Bibliography" sections seem to be what I described in my initial comment above: they have multiple major resources listed -- primarily books. But that's not what you added here; a single link to a short Tribute.ca page with a Reitman bio does not constitute a list of major resources for the film Juno. Once we reach such a time where there are more substantial resources for this very recent film, perhaps then a "Bibliography" section can be credibly added outside the "External links" section.
Until that time, I suggest that the following changes would be more appropriate: A.) Rename the "References" section as "Notes," since you seem to feel that the existing section is more appropriately named that; I have now done that. B.) If you truly feel strongly that the Tribute.ca bio is an important resource for this article (I don't), then add it to the "External links" section and see what other editors think about that. C.) Please note the following guideline, also from Wikipedia:Citing sources: "An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Given that there are no major books out yet on Juno, I think that it is more appropriate to stick with "External links" as a section title rather than "Bibliography" -- but once again, there isn't currently a Wikipedia rationale for having both "Bibliography" and "External links" in the way you tried to implement. There was no clear reason why the Reitman bio should go in the "References" section under "Bibliography" while all other very similar content was under "External links"; it just didn't make sense organizationally. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My responses follow and I will be brief:
  1. "References" is a nebulous term that refers to all manner of reference sources but since it is in use in Wikipedia, it can be retained as an overall section heading.
  2. "Notes" refers to endnotes or footnotes which link to direct quotes or reference sources.
  3. "Bibliography" is a full bibliographical record or notation.
  4. "For further reading" does not really apply in publishing and is part of a bibliography (which is a list of reference sources, whether directly or indirectly used in researching the "piece").
  5. "External links" is another Wicky term that refers generally to Internet resources which normally are listed in bibliographies as non-print resources.
As to sources for a recent production such as Juno, there may be few textual materials available but a quick journey to my local (read tiny) public library produced three or four reviews related to the film from Time, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly and Macleans magazines. Each of these reviews/articles can be used as the basis of further development of the film article and can be listed in a bibliography. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
Wikipedia is a community project, with policies and guidelines developed through consensus process. Your points above may be true for the publishing world in general, but here, we follow current Wikipedia guidelines, as I quoted in my above comment. Your disagreements with WP:CITE -- for example, whether the term "Further reading" is valid -- is your own personal preference/interpretation of the world, so we are not bound to follow that -- of course, if you propose changes to WP:CITE, then that might change. But until then, it's not really appropriate for you to instruct us what's what like this, when Wiki policy currently differs from what you say.
Your insistence on creating a Bibliography section with magazine articles not yet drawn upon as sources in the article seems very strange to me. Better to do what other editors here have done: A.) Paste in the links here on the talk page so that we may all begin to draw on them and actually cite them in the article, OR, B.) As per WP:CITE, place your links under "External links" instead of creating a dual system where links to some articles are under "External links" while some are under "Bibliography". --Melty girl (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Melty girl's position on this. A bibliography can be a few different things, but when it is at the end of an encyclopedia article its purpose is usually to contain a list of cited sources. Since we already have a section for refs, there's no reason to duplicate it with another list (unless it's a list to support Harvard style refs). With that in mind, I looked at the single entry in the Bibliography and saw (1) that it wasn't a link to a source used in the article, and (2) the linked article didn't contain content that appeared useful to the Juno article (IMO). Therefore, I deleted it.

As for the other purpose of a bibliography, a systematic list of publications with a common theme, that could be useful in an article with a weightier topic than Juno (at least at this early stage in its life), but not here. Again, the listed article does not appear that noteworthy as a whole (although some of its content could be incorporated into the Juno article and footnoted), and there was only a single entry. If a significantly larger body of critical literature develops for this film (maybe to the level of something like that for Hamlet), then an additional list of sources not directly used in the article will be appropriate.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim and Melty, not to belabour the point (there's my Canadianism coming out again) but the entry was a "test" entry because I had not been able to get out to the library to do any research. The sole note on a source was merely placed in a bibliography section to show Melty how an entry works. I totally agree it was a "lame" source and it was not going to be used in a future revision. I have now found a number of articles that go beyond the standard, "find it on the 'Net" entries and these can be used to show the more typical film review or evaluation that is found in film analysis. FWIW, the way Wicky treats referencing is slightly different than how bibliographies are found in publications. I follow the Wicky formula but am trying to make other editors aware that there is a different standard for formatting in the "real" world and if you read the standard carefully, it is not as clearcut as you imagine. The referencing issue is an area that I will be addressing in the WP:Film Project Group and this discussion will revolve around not my interpretation but the way that reference sources can be effectively written. As you can already surmise, it is an issue that I have worked with for awhile and over months of discussion, the system that I have used which is a hybrid of Wikipedia's guide has been checked by many editors and admins and has passed the test of being used in FA articles. Bzuk (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for the explanation. I'll be curious to see what happens. Good luck.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I too will be interested to see your proposals at a subject-wide forum. But I would also encourage you to jump in at the Wikipedia-wide forum, where your proposed changes to guidelines would be more binding and universally known. --Melty girl (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of editors have encouraged me to do that but I despaired that it would be like trying to turn the Titanic, although I am willing to give it a try. From the initial formation of the Wikipedia, there was an attempt to follow publishing standards in regards to referencing sources, but there was a scarcity in expertise in this field. In order to accommodate countless new editors who had little or no background in academic writing, a series of templates were created. However, the templates were and remain buggy, are still being revised and I simply found that providing "scratch" cataloging was my best resort, although I recognize that the vast majority of Wiky editors would find that alternative untenable and would prefer a template system. Where the templates do not consider special issues, more than two authors, multiple editions and a wide variety of other deviances, then the editing becomes very muddled. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) .

[edit] Production section original research

The Production section contains what appears to be original research or misstatements about the sources.

  • "Although funded with American money, Juno is also considered by many to be a Canadian film." The cited sources do not support this; in fact, both argue the opposite. Reitman is the only person who explicitly asserts that the film is Canadian, not "many" people; even the articles' writers avoid taking a position. It is the "many" who actually say it is American, CAVCO included.
  • "The Canada-as-America switch is common in cinema, but there were some noticeable lapses as West Coast mountain ranges appeared in the background of what is meant to be midwestern Minnesota scenery." The sources make no reference to a common "Canada-as-America switch" practice and there is no mention of geographical discrepancies at all. Unless there is a reliable source saying this, this is an editor's personal observation.
  • The two sources for the second paragraph, IMDb and Flickr, are not reliable or credible sources and do not support statements made. The statement about the locations providing a "small-town Minnesota feel" needs to be made by a credible source. Also, IMDb can be a good start in tracking down location information, but we need a reliable source with vetted information to support a statement that certain malls and schools were used. Someone uploading pictures to a photo website is not a credible source. Additionally, there's nothing that states that the "majority of the small-town Minnesota feel was provided by" Canadian "stand-in" locations.

Accordingly, I'm tagging the statements for lacking sources.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this comment beforehand, but I've just addressed much of this in my latest edit. --Melty girl (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, but I am still concerned that not all assertions are covered by the existing refs. For example, the continuity "lapses" comment is unsupported and it feels like a movie-goer's observation. Also, who says there was a "small-town Minnesota feel" to the film? And we need something that supports that the McGuff home was in Elgin Heritage Park. Finally, I'm uncomfortable depending solely on IMBd for location information, so I'm going to search out some corroborating sources.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The lack of acceptable citations in this section, especially for newly-added material, is frustrating. I'm concerned that there is a very basic question about the subject of a specific quote that was recently added, so I will track down the EW hardcopy article (since it doesn't appear to have ever made it on the magazine's website) to determine for myself which editor's assertion is accurate. I've also removed references to the director's and stars' birth cities since there wasn't a source to support the accuracy; the fact that they are Canadian is supported by a valid cite and anything really more specific than that isn't necessary. I also removed the quote about a tearful Cody in Vancouver since it wasn't clear what it added to the section (except that she arrived in Vancouver and cried). I've also tried to identify redundant sources and trim them down to one. Finally, please, do not add any more original research.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't have time to research this, but I remember that the director's and stars' birth cities were specifically and definitely mentioned in a cited source. I'm concerned that someone has deleted the source in these latest rounds. --Melty girl (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me, too. I'll go back a few iterations and see what source was originally used. Aaarrrgghhh!
Jim Dunning | talk 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The original entry was made here with no cites, which is surprising since the contributor is big on referencing. It just snowballed from there. The cites were added many edits later, but just to support the Genie Awards brouhaha. The Reitman and Page articles don't have cites that support birth cities. I'll search out some decent sources, although I think "Canadian" is probably fine.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Jim: concerning the EW article, see [5] (page 3 of the article that did in fact make it onto the website!). Second paragraph on the page: "This looks exactly like my parents' old restaurant," says Cody happily, sliding into a cracked round burgundy booth beneath cloudy stained-glass windows. "They owned a German-themed supper club called the Matterhorn with moose heads on the walls and live entertainment — as in a guy with an organ singing 'Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue.'" That's Diablo talking about the bar in which she's being interviewed. The mention of her crying is only on the previous page (of the website; the hardcopy article of course wouldn't be separated identically) and IMO it's pretty impossible to link the two quotes together. —97198 talk 13:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I thought the quote is in the offline EW article. This clarifies that she was commenting on the look of the restaurant she was interviewed in, and that she cried because she was excited that her screenplay was being filmed. Cool. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on EW articles

There have been what appear to be two Valby Entertainment Weekly articles about Diablo Cody referenced in the Notes section and discussions here: "The Screenwriter Diablo Cody" (2007-11-09) and "Diablo Cody: From Ex-Stripper to A-Lister" (2007-11-02). This has caused me some confusion since the "Screenwriter" article did not appear to be online and I couldn't easily verify references to its content. I have, however, obtained it and found the two articles are one in the same; for some reason EW used both titles for the samer article. I suggest that the online version should be referenced to foster verifiability and further research.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! --Melty girl (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography again

I would like to reference some fairly detailed articles on Juno, Karen Valdy's "The Screenwriter Diablo Cody" and Lisa Schwarzbaum's "Knocked Up" in Entertainment Weekly along with Cathy Gulli's "suddenly Teen Pregnancy is Cool?" in Maclean's magazine. These contemporary text sources could be the basis of a bibliography with citations written in Harvard Citation style to link to them. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

I don't understand. Will you be adding content to the prose of the article, and expanding it based on these sources? Or, are you merely going to list these articles under the heading "Bibliography"? If the latter is what you're talking about, I've already argued against it, as has JimDunning; I don't know why you are persisting in the face of WP:CITE, as detailed by me above. Sorry to say it, but it is irritating to me that you have not spoken to the issues we raised, and simply persist with your same wants, "Bibiography again". Jim and I have both encouraged you to go to the policy level instead of spending your energy and that of other editors fighting for your personal preference at individual articles where people will repeatedly respond to you that Wikipedia policy doesn't back you up -- yet you come back to the same argument here. Why? I've now observed that you were fighting a similar fight at Mulholland Drive, and I have to wonder why you are using this strategy, which seems like it frustrates you and is frustrating to others as well. You could have a much more widespread effect and at the same time take a more community-minded, collaborative approach by debating this at the project-wide or Wikipedia-wide level. If people in the Films and Aviation projects have all encouraged you to do so, I don't know why you think it would be too daunting. I've made amendments to Wikipedia policy that have sailed through. So, if you're going to actually add content to the prose of this article based on these sources, by all means, please do! If you're just going to list articles, in light of the previous discussion, you have no basis to be surprised or offended if others reformat your additions. There isn't consensus here for a bibliography, and this is not the place to fight for Wikipedia reference guideline changes. This article already cites some "fairly detailed articles." The article doesn't need more references for people to look at outside of Wikipedia -- it needs to be better fleshed out in prose as per WP:MOSFILM. --Melty girl (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I would be adding content. The entire exercise previously was merely to indicate the use of a bibliography section. Please note that there are other issues involved as I was asked to intercede in the article in question, and if you recall, the same thing applied here, a request for assistance was made. FWiW, trace back and you will find that a nomination to become a film Projects Coordinator has already been made, and that is where exploring the issue of referencing can be inititiated. Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
Though I hate to veer too far afield on article Talk pages from actual discussion of the article itself, we need to clarify two guiding principles: Assume Good Faith and Consensus. Bzuk regularly invokes AGF on Talk pages (both article and user) and edit summaries whenever someone disagrees with his edits and opinions. This is not what AGF is about. AGF is about reverts and changes by editors who "assume" the other editor intends harm to the article by intentionally making unproductive or destructive edits. That is not the case here. When I removed the initial "test" entry I clearly explained my reason in an edit summary (it had nothing to do with vandalism). Above, Melty girl and I have clearly explained our positions on Bzuk's "proposal" (again, no accusations of ill-intent on Bzuk's part). Yet, Bzuk repeatedly criticizes our actions by citing AGF (as he has done at Mulholland Drive with other editors).
Bzuk, please do not confuse "disagreement" with thinking that other editors are changing your contributions because they think you are intentionally injuring Wikipedia, or that those editors are consciously injuring Wikipedia by disagreeing with your edits. That brings us to Consensus. Wikipedia is built around Consensus and that is what you and other editors are trying to achieve by providing adequate edit summaries and engaging in discussion on Talk pages. It is considered good form to accede to the direction supported by a majority of editors. And, yes, WP is not a democracy, so minority positions may "win" the day, and Melty girl has made an excellent recommendation that you pursue the Bibliography cause at the Guidelines level, rather than on multiple article Talk pages. That will be a great way to attempt to attain the Consensus you desire. It also has the benefit of attracting many more editors to the discussion than are watching just this article (or Mulholland Drive for that matter). Ironically, some may consider your assertions that they are violating AGF during a consensus-building process as an AGF violation itself.
Back to the topic at hand, I echo Melty girl's position above. Instead of just listing sources in a Bibliography section, why not read the material and find a suitable place to add it to the article and provide a ref for it. This accomplishes your goal of listing these sources, and it enhances the article further for readers by actually incorporating the source's material into the WP article. This is especially valuable when the source is an offline article to which many readers would have difficulty gaining access. Also, Bibliographies are usually reserved for significant and notable works (thinking of the literary criticism world here); they are not just a comprehensive list of related works, but are usually included because they are significant works in themselves. People and Entertainment Weekly magazines don't seem to rise to that level.
By the way, what does "FWiW" mean?
Jim Dunning | talk 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it means "for what it's worth". As for my opinion, I too think the article would be better served by integrating the information into the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, Jim and Melty, placing new content into the body of the text is exactly the intention, not to introduce a new section that is merely a "For further reading" list. I will post some test edits off my home page, and editors can check these out. For What it's Worth, not much, really. Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

(edit conflict) What you may be interpreting as an OWN issue is really a concern by other editors about the integrity and quality of the article. I have no "quills" to prick up since I do not consider myself a primary contributor to this article, however, when I see a new, single-entry section (Bibliography) added to an article of interest, I understandably investigate. I have absolutely no problem with a Bibliography section in principle, and when I reviewed your edit I saw a reference to an article that, in my humble opinion, (1) added little to the article that wasn't already there, and (2) whose quality and significance don't appear to rise to the level of Bibliography quality. So I deleted it (with a brief rationale in the edit summary). I have no sense of ownership of the article other than I enjoyed the film and had made some small contributions to the article. I made the edit purely because I felt that the entry detracted from the article's quality.

If I understand your explanations, that single entry was a test balloon, an incomplete foray into a format addition. You also acknowledge that the referenced article is "lame". No one should be surprised that even an objective editor, with no vested interest in the article, would remove an incomplete, "lame" edit to ensure the article's quality. There was no indication on the Talk page that this was a work-in-progress. There was no {{inuse}} tag to alert us. So, it's not a question of ownership, but of ensuring quality. That's the primary reason why the Bibliography section has been removed by other editors.

To avoid similar situations in the future, I suggest copying the article into a Sandbox and experimenting on it there. Then invite others to review it and comment. This would mitigate any work-in-progress-look concerns for other editors, and would give you a tangible example to use for fodder at WikiProject Films when you discuss the pros and cons of the format. (Again, I don't see any issues with the inclusion of a Bibliography and don't perceive it as a format change: I just didn't think the section was warranted at that point and the content was not significant enough to support such a sub-section at that point.) Try the Sandbox and I'll be glad to provide input.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will set up a sandbox project page shortly. Bzuk (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
Cool. You can also use a Sandbox for shorter edits. To avoid piecemeal contributions, work on the edit offline in the Sandbox and then copy it complete into the article. Someone may disagree with the contribution, but at least it's a finished work.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Production locations

Although Flickr images are not generally acceptable, the information on film locations located on a Flickr site: <!ref>Eric Hamber Secondary in "Juno". Retrieved: April 6, 2008.</ref> was where the information was found. Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Found a reliable cite. All set.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Themes

One of the aspects of the film's theme that was discussed by Cathy Gulli in the Maclean's article "Suddenly teen pregnancy is cool" is that with the release of Juno and the recent announcement of celebrity teen pregnancies including that of Jamie Lynn Spears, Brittany's younger sister, a "fad" was being established. She went on to describe the baby as a new fashion accessory, with the telling statement that "Babies are the new handbag." The cover photo also brings Ellen Page into the picture in a dramatic way.

Cover picture
Cover picture

The use of this photo and a brief analysis of the article's content may be connected to the film's themes although the allegation that teen mothers are prepared to tackle both adolescency and motherhood is slightly tenuous. What say you? FWiW, the last edit to combat vandalism was possibly an edit conflict, as I had to determine what was the last "clean" edit. Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

I don't have the article in front of me, but personally, I don't think that this sounds like a discussion of this film's themes or content; it sounds more like an "In pop culture" mention of Juno. From what you've said, and again, I haven't read the article, this sounds like the writer was looking a pop culture in a sweeping way and making the rather superficial and probably unfounded comment that teen pregnancy is now hip across North American culture. But this doesn't seem to be an analysis of the film Juno's themes. Perhaps you could add a link to the article so that other editors could take a look? --Melty girl (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link: [6] This is the note I keyed on:
"Babies are the new handbag" | Teen pregnancy may be all the rage, but two Calgary teens tell what it's really like to be an underage mom
  • The teen who makes pregnancy seem cool | Wholesome, bright and responsible—16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is redefining teen pregnancy. The question is: for better or for worse?
"When Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old sister of Britney, announced that she was pregnant last month in OK!, the magazine sold a record two million copies and had to run a second printing of the issue to keep up with demand. How could a wealthy preteen idol with her own hit Nickelodeon show, and the good sister to her chaotic older kin, be just several months away from adolescent, out-of-wedlock motherhood? "I didn't believe it because Jamie Lynn's always been so conscientious. She's never late for her curfew," lamented mother Lynne Spears. She got over the shock in a week, and then Jamie Lynn, ever conscientious, notified the press that she would be having, keeping and raising the baby with her mama in Louisiana. "I'm just trying to do the right thing," said the star of Zoey 101.
Only a few days earlier, the film Juno had been released to instant and unanimous applause from such diverse sources as The New Yorker, Christianity Today and Film Freak Central. Suddenly the heroine of a hit movie — a comedy no less — could be a smart, motivated, white, middle-class girl, just 16, who matter-of-factly chooses to have a baby and an open adoption rather than an abortion. No big deal." FWiW, the photo, connection to the teen pregnancy debate can be a connection to a popular culture reference. Bzuk (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for the link. The Maclean's article is about teen pregnancy in society, with only three sentences on Juno, so I don't think it fits the Themes section. As for it being a pop culture reference of Juno, I'm not a fan of "In pop culture" sections, because I think they usually turn into dumping grounds for random info; I don't think it would be especially helpful to WP readers to know that Juno was namechecked in a Maclean's article about teen pregnancy. I don't think this Maclean's piece has any relevance to this film's article, but I'm not sure what others think, or exactly how you are suggesting the Maclean's information be worked in here. --Melty girl (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The use of Juno as an example of a trend towards the "coolness" of teenage pregnancy is the reason for the inclusion of the Maclean's article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC). See: User:Bzuk/Sandbox/Juno (film) Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
I took a look at your sandbox, and I would oppose such an addition as written. Your paragraph does not discuss the themes in this film, and that's what matters. And even if this were an article about teenagers in North America, no such trend of pregnancy rising simply because teens think it's cool can be credibly supported just because one Maclean's writer says that teenagers think this, or because one hit movie has a pregnant teen as a lead character, or one celebrity teen gets pregnant! There are much wider forces at work in society than these three small things. IMO, the proposed paragraph is irrelevant to both the Themes section and this article in general. Bottom line: your proposed paragraph and its source do not offer any analysis of this film! It seems only to succeed in incorporating one of your pet sources. Sorry. --Melty girl (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that one of themes of the film is "pregnancy is cool". Cast members also say that, and the Maclean's article doesn't say that. One of the trends explored in the Maclean's article might be that, but this is an article about Juno, not teen pregnancy trends. Therefore using the Maclean's article as a basis for introducing such a theme into this article is an awfully thin argument. The teen pregnancy issue is already addressed in the opening paragraph of the Themes section, but, possibly -- just possibly -- one of the references there could be replaced with the Maclean's article (presented appropriately), but nothing more. As Melty girl points out, it is only three sentences -- if there was more and the author was more explicit ... maybe.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Production re-write

I recently completely re-wrote the Production section, and there's a good chance other people will have issues with the new "look", so I taken it upon myself to start this thread and explain some things, and feel free to discuss. :)

  • I'm being bold and removing the pre-existing Casting section now that there's a Production subheading - I am aware this might be seen as less detailed than the previous section, but I didn't include a lot of stuff previously there that seemed to me just the actors saying how great they thought the script was.
  • I removed some filming locations because they were unsourced and I couldn't find any reliable sources for the ones I didn't include. Lots of nice blogs, though ;)
  • I put the Jenny, Juno debate thingo (quote from Diablo's blog) under Development, only because I don't think that warrants a Controversy-like section on its own - it's hardly a controversy IMO. I thought it belonged under Development more than anywhere else just because it's her clarifying that Juno isn't based on the "K-flick".

Erm, hope that "satisfies everybody's curiosity" (to quote a number of corny movies and TV shows) - I'm open to discussion on anything else. —97198 talk 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like lots and lots of good stuff, and in a great format. On a very quick first look, I have three comments.
  1. An established actor like Allison Janney saying she was attracted to the project because of the script is not trivial. It probably has a great deal to do with how she came to be in the film, because she has her pick of projects. And clearly, the script bowling people over is a central theme in the story of how Juno came to be. So while I'm not saying everything from the old format should have stayed, I disagree with your characterization of that aspect and your interpretation of what's important to the section.
  2. I don't see how the Jenny, Juno thing fits into the Developement subsection at all. This is something that didn't come to light until the film came out. Personally, I don't care if it's in the article at all, because I think it borders on trivia, but if it stay, I don't see the logic to keeping it under Development at all.
  3. Your Music subsection overlaps with the subsequent Soundtrack section, and this needs sorting out badly. Both sections refer people to the main article for the Soundtrack. Production/Music should be about how the music came to be selected during the production process, while the subsequent Soundtrack section should be about the final soundtrack as released, but your new section seems to try to do both even while the existing Soundtrack section now seems as if it repeats your information. Something needs to give.
All in all though, it looks as though you've made a great leap forward for the article! Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a semi-trivial editorial comment; I noticed that there are several referenced statements to the same source. Please use <ref name="Shortcut">Reference</ref> for the first instance and then <ref name="Shortcut"/> for each subsequent repeated reference so that the ref-list at the end doesn't explode with lots of the same reference. See WP:FN for more. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) [In reply to Melty:] 1) Feel free to add in whatever you think is worth mentioning about the cast adoring the script. Doesn't bother me if you think it's notable. 2) Hmm. Again, I'm happy for it to go - the main thing from the blog is that the film was supposed to be called "Junebug". But I do disagree about it belonging in Development - most of the section's about Juno's conception (no pun intended) and she was clarifying that it wasn't based on Jenny, Juno. 3) Looks like I missed the Soundtrack section when I was clearing out redundant sections... I'll do that now. —97198 talk 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I still have to pick through it, but it looks great! Especially like how all the new material is well-sourced. Last night I had some concerns about doubling up on the music and bare cites, but when I awoke this morning all those things had gone away. Like how the"Jenny-Juno" has been put in better perspective. Well done. I'll go over it more closely later today.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] platform/Fox

The release stuff looks great except for two things...

  1. What is a "platform release"? This is industry jargon that should be explained.
  2. But anyway, do we really care about this film in the context of how Fox Searchlight pictures have done? Shouldn't we be more concerned with how this film has done in the context of the entire industry? Having Juno compared to The Banger Sisters only seems to underscore that concentrating on Fox's films is somewhat trivial and that this sentence is bound to go out of date quickly. --Melty girl (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A platform release is when a film is released into a few theatres, then a few more, gradually expanding each week... like platforms! The Fox Searchlight records are worth mentioning IMO - if you can find some figures in relation to the "entire industry" then go ahead and add 'em - though I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see why we shouldn't care about the film in the context of how Fox Searchlight have done. And if you're scared the figures'll go out of date it's pretty easy to add an "at the time of its release". —97198 talk 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me be more specific. An encyclopedia should be going for wider context of the whole film industry, not just tracking Fox Searchlight's internal records, where it's competing only against itself. When we talk about Fox Searchlight's most successful platform release, we have narrowed the competition/context being discussed twofold (just Fox, not all movies; just platform releases, not all releases). The general reader could be left wondering, "What's a platform release?" but even more importantly, "How many other types of releases are there? Two? Five?" and "How many other studios are there that use platform releases? And how many other studios use the other kinds of releases? And what access do those studios have to theaters in comparison to Fox Searchlight? What other contemporary films were released by studios of comparable size to Fox Searchlight?" I'm afraid that in the absence of this wider context, the fact, as written, is rather meaningless. It's industry jargon, so much so that there's no Wikilink to offer for platform release. The very least you could do in the prose would be to explain the significance of the statement "Fox Searchlight's widest ever platform release" so that people know why you've included it; but even so, I'm not sure it's that useful to this WP article outside of an industry-wide benchmark. --Melty girl (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In lieu of an improvement to the WP:JARGON problem or a response to my elaboration about the lack of real context, I have removed the statement. When I inspected the source, which turned out to be a blog that simply reprinted a Fox Searchlight press release, it became more apparent than ever that this sentence was more like Fox Searchlight promotional language than clear and relevant Wikipedia information about Juno. --Melty girl (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh... sure. Happy to go with you on that one. It's a few bytes of text at the end of the day :D —97198 talk 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

Was there discussion before this appeared as a nom for GA? Qb | your 2 cents 15:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was withdrawn in the end. Qb | your 2 cents 16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I left a note for the nominator asking them to withdraw because the article still has lots of issues that need addressing before GAN. —97198 talk 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that I have time to devote to another article since Natalee Holloway has gone FA, I will help out here too, if it is OK. Forgive me if I step on any toes, I have read through the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been nommed again, this time by User:Chimeric Glider. GA is definitely a goal for the future but article isn't quite up to scratch yet. —97198 talk 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we let it go through and at least get some feedback out of it?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
<shrugs> Dunno. Two things I certainly think need working on are the lead (needs thorough expansion and/or a good rewrite) and the critical reception section (the only review actually cited is Ebert's, and one or two negative reviews might be nice - I have some good links addressing the "backlash" against the film). Plus, the prose could be polished just about everywhere. That said, it wouldn't be too hard to do any of that in not that long. Thoughts? —97198 talk 09:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the refs need to be formatted (I might just do that tonight, or tomorrow, what a good idea!) because half of them are in template form and half handwritten and unfortunately they don't all come up the same. —97198 talk 09:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll start some work on the prose when I get a chance. I have a busy two days in front of me, but after that, I have plenty of time. I'll start by saying that the lede describes Juno as "sharp-tongued". I think that is taken straight from the press kit, but I'm not sure that really is her most outstanding characteristic. Something more like "individualistic", but maybe a better term along those lines. Minor issue, but sets the tone for the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolies. Maybe we can get it to some kind of standard before it gets near the top of the list at WP:GAN#Theatre, film and drama. —97198 talk 09:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. If it is needed I will do what I can to improve the article. When I encountered it, it was one of the best non-GA-or-FA film articles I've seen so I nominated it, didn't see the problems. To be honest, they seem so subtle. :-) Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and next task on the list is adding missing awards & nominations (which is most of them). We definitely haven't got all 39 wins and 31 noms... :( —97198 talk 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few thoughts

Here's what I see as serious concerns with the article, which, in my view, is not too far away from GA.

1. Plot needs extensive rewrite. I suspect that they had a reason for breaking the movie down into four seasons. The plot may want to follow that. Some mention should be made of the boys' track team running by at intervals, if it is significant. Bet something is said about it in the director's commentary on the DVD!

2. Too many of the production sections really need you to have seen the movie to make sense of it. The music section, while well researched, lacks structure and direction. A paragraph at the beginning explaining the overall significance of the music would be a good start. As for the opening title sequence, unless you've seen the movie, you don't know why this deserves its own subsection. And even then, you might not think it does. Explain up front. All of the subsections may just contain too much detail and be good for someone who loves the movie, but WP is for everyone.

3. Coming back to the plot for a section, I would have a section before the plot, setting forth, briefly, the major characters, who plays them, and a brief description of each. This saves exposition in the plot section, and makes sure the reader knows what we're talking about. A photo or screencap would be good here. We were told to do this when we brought the Borat movie up to FA.

4. I'd move the home media section to the end. When in doubt, be chronological. Any luck getting a photo of the DVD cover? Amazon? It's fair use, right?

5. Can the soundtrack and music sections be compacted?

Just a few thoughts, IMO.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A few responses:
  1. Some of your comments may be on target, but they're rather general. I don't think I can really have an informed opinion about some of your suggestions until I start seeing some actual edits from you that show exactly where you want to go with things.
  2. You don't seem to be familiar with MOS:FILM's suggested organizational structure for film articles. This article, while not perfect, is in line with the guideline, while a few of your suggestions for reorganization are not. I suggest that you review the guideline and perhaps come back and offer a modified strategy (and some edits).
  3. Related to that: while there may be many ways to improve the writing in the Plot section, it is fully within the MOS:FILM guideline for length, style, and proper introduction of characters and actors. (It's brevity in particular is unusual to new film articles, and it should not be significantly lengthened.) In terms of plot, the track team's repeated appearances would probably add unnecessary detail and length to the section. Plot sections are not intended to be a blow-by-blow of everything that is seen in a film.
--Melty girl 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I find it helpful to discuss before I barge into an article. What I have suggested is in line with MOS:FILM, it is often helpful to have a cast list (major characters) away from the plot section. My major concern, though, is with the production subsections, they should have a summary first paragraph and some way for the average reader to understand the significance. For example, most film title sequences are not worthy of discussion, Juno's may or may not be, but it took well into the subsection to understand what the film's introduction was, that is, some sort of montage of Juno with a bottle of Sunny D (Yes I have seen the film, I don't remember the sequence though. I have ordered the DVD though). Maybe have a first sentence describing it?
And yes, I was general, so sorry. If I give specifics, it is easier just to fix them myself, being bold! Anyway, I'll start on the easy stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it can be nice to discuss some before starting edits -- but go ahead and edit away! It's easier to discuss concrete edits and diffs. I do look forward to your edits aimed at providing better introductory prose for sections.
I'll just add that MOS:FILM does not recommend a cast list prior to the plot section, and I don't think one is merited. There used to be a Cast section, but it was all fancruft that was basically just a Plot #2 section, and that was removed. I then started a Casting section, with real world info focusing on the actors, but another editor removed it and incorporated some of it into the Production section. Last, I'll just say that the opening credits, which blended animation and live action, seemed to get a lot of attention from the press, but I'm not sure how much space is warranted for that. If there is something on it, however, it should be separate from the other info about the film's design, because it was done by an outside studio. --Melty girl 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That is fine. I will read through the references (I already read the press kit) and watch the DVD when it arrives tomorrow. I think there should be some sort of summary or topic sentence at least in each subsection, just to give the reader something to hold onto. Thank you for being so open to my edits in the plot section. I'm still not totally happy, but I want to watch the movie again before I do too much more editing. What I meant by cast section was like this, [7], we didn't have it originally but we were told to add it when we were going for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha -- I thought you wanted to add it before the Plot section. I added a Casting section in this format myself to this article, following Plot, and was overridden. MOS:FILM recommends a variety of formats for casting info, and this is one of them; the key thing, however, is to focus on real world info like how an actor was cast or how s/he prepared for the role, rather than to discuss the fictional characters more. The other thing to keep in mind is that each FAC is unique due to the individuals who choose to get involved... there is no FAC requirement for Cast sections. So while I wouldn't mind seeing a stronger stand alone cast section (see the history for what I and some other editors came up with), it is not a requirement for GA or FA. --Melty girl 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad memory, I thought it was before. I know what you mean, the requirement for FA is whatever hoops they make you jump through!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)