Talk:The Spirit (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future
This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

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

Contents

[edit] Citations for use

Thanks for the heads-up. I created a Cast section now that we have more than one person. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

--J.D. (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited passage

"At the New York Comic-con on February 24, 2007, Michael Uslan stated that production is going lightning fast and said that Frank Miller is nearing completion of what looks to be the final draft. When asked if the film will be a hard R, he said that while the film will have elements of Frank Miller's film noir, that the expectation is a hard PG-13 in order to stay true to Will Eisner's vision. Mr. Uslan also stated that at this point pre-production for The Spirit is expected to begin very soon, most likely before that of Sin City 2."

  • The article already says that principal photography will begin in late spring 2007.
  • The article already says that Miller has begun a second draft. Saying "what looks to be" is speculative.
  • The actual quote regarding the rating is, "It's hard to say until we have a script to analyze and figure out… If I had to guess, I would say more of a hard PG-13." Guesses aren't confirmation of actual film ratings.
  • Cited mention of The Spirit likely to begin before Sin City 2 has already been added.
I'm removing the uncited passage on these grounds of redundancy and inaccuracy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Executive producers

The consensus of WikiProject Films was to exclude executive producers and associate producers unless they have some direct bearing on the film. There is no reason to add executive producers indiscriminately to the article; this has never been the standard, and the method is akin to adding names from film credits to the article without indicating their relevance. Dawgknot has chosen to ignore this consensus to add the indiscriminate information, and we have exhausted our 3RR limits. I request for any other editor to evaluate the situation and act accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to Eric to determine the relevance of the contribution of producers whose names appear in virtually every article published in the media. It is an arbitrary 'consensus' that is observed more in the breach. Check out the credits, for example, of Schindler's List. Many of the listed 'Producers' were actually Executive Producers.
In the case of The Spirit, the article makes clear that Oddlot entered into a collaboration with Batfilm which had controlled the property for over a decade and developed it. If the Executive Producers mentioned were so inconsequential to the final result, the burden is upon Eric to demonstrate it. It's a pretty weak assumption from the start that credited producers somehow don't make an impact. -User:Dawgknot
I don't think you understand what consensus means; I suggest that you read the policy if you haven't already. I did not alone dictate that it is not reasonable to mention executive producers in the article. There are two clear consensuses for this matter -- "executive producer" and "associate producer" attributes were specifically removed from the Infobox Film template because the names were too indiscriminate. Secondly, the large majority of film articles on Wikipedia that have achieved GA or FA status do not bother to name the executive producers or associate producers. Please understand these roles are different from actual producers like Joel Silver. Lastly, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are trade papers for the Hollywood industry, so the names are relevant to the industry, but not in the encyclopedic sense. You'll notice that no reference outside these references bother to reiterate the executive producers' names. If users want to view the full credits of a film, not just executive producers, but everyone else as well, IMDb is available in two places as a link to visit. I hope you understand that the community, not me, has spoken both explicitly and implicitly on this matter by not including this information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Just because the info template has removed the category of Executive Producers (which I think is silly), there is no "consensus" that Executive Producers or Associate Producers are banned from the Wiki articles discussing their films. What sort of arbitrary and capricious decision is that?

It is a false distinction that somehow the trade papers Hollywood Reporter and Variety are merely written for the industry and therefore irrelevant. That they publish in front page articles the names of relevant producers is proof positive that the industry deems their contribution as significant. You don't see the Best Boy named or the Key Grip.

However, here are some consumer references:

http://www.comics2film.com/b/index.php?blog=17&title=lionsgate_conjures_the_spirit_with_odd_l&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_12733.html

http://wizarduniverse.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=33bdb1b384c7b97c0f974d6dc4c6ff05&showtopic=15167&pid=436254&st=0&#entry436254

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=005354

In fact there are many search pages of blogs and consumer press references to these two men.

You seem to be taking an Wikipedia:Ownership of articles posture. I'm reasonably certain that the burden is upon a dissenting editor to make the case that the inclusion of credited Executive Producers is an indiscriminate collection of information. And I certainly don't agree that in the context of thet text I offered that it violates the consensus on formatting.

Finally, the rule is observed mostly in the breach. In this article alone, there is a reference to a writer whose efforts appear to have nothing to do with Frank Miller's script. How irrelevant is that? Moreover, if you check Schindler's List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_list, you will see that there are many executive and associate producers listed under the Producers section of the template you referenced. Frankly, the same courtesy should be accorded to any credited Executive Producer unless it can proved that they got their credit by chicanery or by being irrelevant to the outcome.

There is no consensus on this point in spite of any claim to the contrary.-User:Dawgknot —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:24, August 21, 2007 (UTC).


And I can find no discussion about the Executive Producer issue about which consensus is claimed. If someone can help me find it, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance. However, a perfect example of my point is contained on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Two of the three Producers listed for The Terminator were Executive Producers. On the basis of that style guide, I will add the Executive Producers of The Spirit to the box on the right of the article screen. - User:Dawgknot —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:39, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I can find no evidence of the stated consensus. I've read the discussion pages closely of the film project and the template. Perhaps, someone might take a moment and help me find it. But, in contrary to the statement of consensus, it appears that this issue is very much alive at Template:Infobox Film. Discussion items 29 and 48 are current and clearly indicate that there is interest in including all producers. It hardly seems right that Schindler's List includes Executive Producers as well as Associate Producers and we seem to be at loggerheads about the only 2 Executive Producers any published account on The Spirit mentions. I'm hoping we can find a suitable resolution of this.

It seems to me that if substantial press includes the mention of certain people on the film, including trade press, then there is a broad view and even a strong presumption that those parties are and have been very important to the film. Wouldn't it be incumbant upon someone who takes the opposite view to supply evidence that those credited weren't significant to the process?

Let's talk about this.

Dawgknot 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

First of all, can I ask you to streamline your comments? They are indented and spaced at different places, making a direct response difficult (hence this arbitrary break). I've investigated the matter myself, and it does not seem that there is clear consensus on the inclusion of these producers, either. In addition to the lack of full discussion at the talk page for WP:MOSFILMS (which is kind of commonplace), I've looked at film articles of FA status. The most recent one, 300, lists four "classic" producers out of sixteen producer positions. However, for other films of FA status, there seems to be inconsistency, which I've reported in a new discussion initiated here. The links that you've provided, though, is basically the text duplicated from The Hollywood Reporter, so this doesn't present evidence of executive producers being reported beyond trade papers. Also, accusing another editor of ownership is poor conduct, especially considering that two other editors have reverted you where they have not edited this article before. This is a situation that needs to be discussed more clearly, and I've presented the link to that discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been too quick to judge your thoughts. However, if you take the time to see it from my point of view, I have added factual material that is relevant and in context and you have repeatedly reverted them out for stated reasons that turn out to be incorrect. Moreover, I was arbitrarily blocked...but you weren't. Pardon my concern that I have been swarmed. If not apologies all around.
I would appreciate it very much if you would permit me to edit this article along the line I have done unless you wish to continue to block my work. Then we must find a path of agreement.
How do you wish to proceed with this?

Dawgknot 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here. We'll see what others have to say. Also in regard to being blocked, I've already left a comment on your talk page about that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAST

Why wouldn't we want to include Scarlett Johansson and Eva Mendes in the cast list? They are bona fide stars and not bit players. I propose that we add those names to the data box (along with the names of the Executive Producers and the CoProducers). Dawgknot 15:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic book

The Spirit is not a comic strip!

From Spirit:

"The Spirit is a fictional American masked crime-fighter, created by writer-artist Will Eisner in 1940, who starred in a Sunday-newspaper comic-book insert." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.30.109 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, there WAS a Spirit newspaper strip. BUT, it came later after the comic book insert was successful. Plus he appeared in comic books, both reprints of the newspaper insert and original stories. ---emb021 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.158.153 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Miller

is a long time fan of The Spirit. His first Batman-Story (a short christmas story) shows influence of Will Eisner, in a reprint comic book of the The Spirit by Kitchen Sink Press is his letter and he had long talks with Will Eisner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.30.109 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New posters

Superherohype has released three new posters of the film (http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=7020). I consider we could replace the current picture for the third one of these posters, as it is more movie-related (that is, it features the actor who´s playing the character and isn´t just a drawing).Franshu (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the third one will be out of context by itself, having only the caption, "And I am her Spirit." Not to mention that the posters have the SHH! watermark. I think we should wait a little longer for a one-sheet. Would that be OK? I do realize that the existing poster is a bit old. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)