Talk:The Devil Wears Prada (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Devil Wears Prada (film) article.
Article policies
Good article The Devil Wears Prada (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Daniel Case (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Ongoing

  • Continue to weave all information into relevant article text and avoid any temptation to create a trivia/miscellanea section.

Essential to article

  • Put citations for any references from novel into article. Done
  • Find source for Ebert & Roeper ref. Done
  • Some more notes from DVD commentary about real-world fashion impact of movie. Done
  • See if an online source still exists for Booth Moore cite. now an indirect one
  • Create section for marketing and prerelease with citation to Hollywood Reporter article. Done
  • Short subsection on production design, so as to note set design theory, the photo with Anne Hathaway and her mother, the deliberately different computer desktop images for Andy and Emily, the deliberate homage to a recent Vogue cover, and use of specific non-fashion product brands (Apple, the cell phones etc.). Done
  • Rewrite plot summary so it's no longer quite vague enough to fit both book and movie.> Done
  • Put in some quotes from reviews making favorable mention of Blunt's performance so that the reader understands why she got nominated for a Golden Globe (or Oscar too, if that happens). Then add to that section so that sums up the overall themes of critical response to the film. Done
  • Create articles on redlinked individuals (McKenna, Ballhaus, Livolsi, Owens) involved in production; delink most of minor cast presently redlinked. Done
  • Get a pic or two from production (either the IMdB promos or those ones from Flickr if the user there can be persuaded to change the CC licensing so they are fit for commercial use). Done
  • Change to lower-res onesheet image in compliance with fair-use dispute. Done
  • Put website link into infobox. Done
  • Rearrange slightly so that cast and diffs section come near the end.Decided not to do after all, instead just reformatted cast section.
  • Keep track of awards and nominations (Oscars only at this point; but also consider NY and LA film critics circles) or notable year-end ten-best list mentions, if any. Going well as of 2007-01-04
  • Get some foreign release dates and gross information. Done
  • If the DVD makes any notable achievements either critically or commercially, note them. Done
  • rewrite intro to fully summarize article. Done
  • Once all this is done, take to PR, GA and hopefully eventually FAC.

After peer review

  • Split off production history into separate article.

Possible

Contents

[edit] A few things...

  • I've been wondering if the article should indicate the several clothing lines featured in the film.
It does now that the DVD's out and we can hear Patricia Field talk about it on the commentary track. Daniel Case 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The claim that Anna Wintour was going to "banish" fashion designers for appearing in the film needs references.
It's at the end of that paragraph. Daniel Case 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It is, but one or two more should be included. Crimson-Radar 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a second ref for both allegations. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. Thanks! Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The "differences" section is unbelievably long.
The result of all sorts of well-meaning anons after the film came out. Some really aren't, IMO, worth noting; others could be combined. I'll have to take a look at it this weekend and see what I can do, now that the film is in that distribution interstice between theatrical and DVD release. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of it is relatively trivial and the section could use some heavy trimming. Personally, the most notable differences between the film and novel should be kept. Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the minor cast section necessary? While they're notable, perhaps they can be trimmed for now and replaced at a later date.
That was per the project guidelines when I started the page. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some other clean-up should be instituted as well.
Crimson-Radar 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on differences between novel and movie is a bit too long 203.109.177.43 02:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)itsawayoflife

Yes, I totally agree ... and I was the one who started it. As I've said above, I'll have to sit down and clear it out soon, given that we're coming up on the US DVD release. Daniel Case 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences section cleanup

OK, I finally did this. The biggest thing that saved space was just generally summing up the differences in the endings. It's not necessary to say that Nigel doesn't get the job he was looking for with James Holt at the end of the novel because not only does James Holt not exist in the book, the book's Nigel is very different ... both points that have already been made. (Oh, wait, I forgot to add that Holt was created for the film). I also consolidated many of the points about the same characters. I don't know if it's shorter but it's better organized, that's for sure. Daniel Case 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need sources on these

Two of the differences concerning the twins are hereby being parked over here:

In the novel, the twins attend the Horace Mann School in The Bronx, New York, while in the movie, they attend The Dalton School in New York, New York.

I do not recall either the film or the novel explicitly identifying their school. I'll watch the DVD closely and reread the book, but I always got the impression from the latter that we're meant to think they go to the Lycée Français.

OK, the book does specify Horace Mann at one point. But whither the film? The twins are used so little. Daniel Case 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found proof of both, with cites. Daniel Case 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the book, Miranda and Andrea both stay at the Hôtel Ritz Paris. In the movie it's the Plaza Athénée.

Actually, I'm leaving this in pending the DVD. Is the hotel identified in the film? Or this is just something we would know because we've all stayed at all the fancy hotels in the tenth arrondissment, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

OK, this is confirmed in one of the deleted scenes. Article edited to reflect this. Daniel Case 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impending DVD release

Just a heads-up to editors about the DVD release of the film slated for this Tuesday. We can expect a spike in well-meaning anon edits and, perhaps, vandalism (at least it'll be a relief from the cavalcade of complaints that we should have an article about the eponymous band). However, based on its reported extras, there should be a lot of useful information for the article in the featurettes. I hope I will be able to rent it on the day it comes out or shortly thereafter; however I'm not sure I'll be able to. If anyone does and wants to add stuff, remember to cite it (Have we come up with a format for DVD audio commentary citations yet? Has the MLA? APA? Harvard? Anyone? Bueller?). Daniel Case 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Not featured?

Why is this not featured? I mean this page is about 10x the length of any other movie article on Wikipedia! -24.92.43.153 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't started the process yet, that's why. I am expecting to start at WP:FILMS's peer review next week. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

The Plot section has gotten too big, need to cut down some. It shouldn't exceed 900 words. Right now, it consists of about 1350 words.--Crzycheetah 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is such a big film and I think the plot is just right now. It needs to be more in depth as before it didn't capture much of Miranda's harshness or any of the plot too in depth. It states up the top that this article may be entered to become a featured article (and it's such a wonderful article that I really enjoyed reading, which deserves to become a featured article), and the plot would need to be fairly in depth. And for a film that is 109 minutes long, I don't think the plot is too long. After all, the plot is the most important thing about any film right? Eagle Owl 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The plot is too long to read. This article is not going to get featured because of its size (91kb). Take a look at this featured article (50kb) for example, it's a 133 min. film yet the plot consists of ~770 words. Shortening the plot is not a solution either. There are too many subsections that make this article unreadable. --Crzycheetah 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Before I submitted this to peer review, I made a point of following guidelines and getting the plot summary down to less than a thousand words, per guidelines and other FILMPR discussions. Given that I'm too aware of this article's excessive length, I suggest that the last thing it needs is more plot (contrast this with what I did over at the the novel article, which is definitely too long and detailed and will, at some point, be trimmed down).

I would also suggest, though, that as far as overall length goes it's not really fair to compare this to one of the Star Wars articles. Those films, after all, are part of a series in which information is given in other articles, particularly ones not devoted to specific films in the series but general themes and such. This one has to stand alone ... I presumed a reader unfamiliar with the novel, as we should.

Also, aren't references not counted as part of an article's total length? That would take it down a bit. Daniel Case 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends who's reading the article, whether it is unreadable, after all it is English.
I mean I don't know the specific criteria for featured article, and don't really have much time for them, I was just saying that is what it states at the top of this talk page. I suppose the plot may be too long, and if I've got time, I'll try and decrease it slightly. Eagle Owl 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to decrease the plot but can't seem to find what else needs to go. Maybe others can have a go but i'll leave the article for now. I don't think it's too long to read, but is quite a generous length. Maybe it could still do with cutting down. Thanks for communication. Eagle Owl 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel, you are right, references do not count. I just didn't bother to exclude the references for both articles in my example. I understand that the film is more detailed than most of the others; therefore, I am thinking to make this article an exception to the guidelines. I still don't like how the Table of Contents is constructed, though. I believe some of the sections need to go. Some examples:
  • The Prerelease and marketing section should be a part of the Production section.
  • The Criticism section should be a part of the Critical reception subsection.
  • The Reception subsection of DVD should be a part of the lead in the DVD section.
  • Same goes for Blu-Ray subsection.
I was thinking of putting these suggestions in the WP:FILMPR, but it really doesn't matter, does it? --Crzycheetah 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate production history article?

So far I've found the two peer reviewers to have made helpful comments, and I have or will implement their suggestions. However, the article's overall length is still a problem that I don't see anything above solving. Merging sections only makes the TOC smaller; it won't do much to tighten up the article as a whole.

The real problem re the article's length is the production section, which runs for almost 3,500 words, roughly 27% of a (currently) 13,000-word article. During my initial work on this, I saw how much the section was growing and pondered splitting it off into a separate Production history of The Devil Wears Prada article. I didn't because it seemed that there was no other article that did this, and I decided I'd wait to see what people thought in peer review or elsewhere.

It seems there is no objection to the content of the section, save the storyboards bit being more trivial than David Frankel presents it as being. But it is undeniably the python bump in the article.

So, I am proposing splitting it off into a daughter article and leaving behind about four or five grafs and a pic or two summing up. I bet we could make up a lot of length that way and get more room to maneuver with the other sections. If it were half its length, and the "differences" section under plot prosified as I have considered on peer review, I bet we could get this under 50K.

Now I'm still aware that there are no separate production history articles for other films ... yet. But I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea. Certainly the Star Wars movies could have even more written about their production histories than currently are; I see other films in the future needing one as I'm sure this issue will come up again. Older films like Citizen Kane and Casablanca have also had enough written about their production to sustain separate articles. We would need an appropriate category, of course ... something like Category:Production histories of films would probably meet the category naming convention standards.

Any thoughts on this? I'm going to put this split proposal into the article and wait a few days. Daniel Case 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not a frequent editor of this page, but I do admire its thoroughness and would definitely put a vote in for splitting off this section, and would consider helping split off more sections like it in other film articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- I definitely agree. The information is very comprehensive. (BPhilli6)

I'm going to remove the merge template. Over a year has passed with no action, and I also feel it is unnecessary. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the inaction, but I restored as a) I intend to do it soon and b) it is a necessary action IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

"Another newspaper fashion writer, Hadley Freeman of The Guardian, likewise complained the film was awash in the sexism and clichés that, to her, beset movies about fashion in general. She did not, however, directly dispute the authenticity of any aspect of the film." The second sentence strikes me as a touch of analysis. It's not really wikipedia's job to analyze what the author didn't say; it's simply to state what s/he did. Just IMO. Chevinki 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, good call. Gives me more justification for cutting. Daniel Case 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cast

Not quite sure, but wouldn't it be more convenient having Cast after Plot? The information after Plot (Production) uses the names of the actor a lot, and a normal person without general knowledge of the actors may find it a tad bit confusing. Just IMO :] Lenners 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's per project guidelines and MoS. See WP:MOSFILMS. Daniel Case 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.jpg

Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there possibly a way to watch the deleted scenes online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.110.189 (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They used to be on YouTube but not anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reference for future cultural impact section

This was in today's New York Times, and I think it can justify something in this article:

Rozhon, Tracy. "Upstairs, Downstairs and Above the Garage", The New York Times, 2008-03-18. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. "The term 'personal assistant' has been degraded over the years and is now almost synonymous with the overworked, underpaid heroine of the movie and book 'The Devil Wears Prada.'" 

[edit] Notes to GA reviewer

I am hoping to split the production history off before it is reviewed ... otherwise it is too long. Also expect to copyedit extensively. Feel free to put on hold if not done when you get to reviewing it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisted, referred back to GAN

I have delisted this article from WP:GA due to the fact that a proper review was not conducted. The article was simply "passed" by Limetolime and then he deleted his useless comments, which is not an acceptable GA review. The article is now a GA nominee again. When reviewing, please follow the Good Article criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)