User talk:TheLastAmigo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello TheLastAmigo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Artaxiad 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

==Orphaned non-free image (Image:Shot4.jpg)==

Thanks for uploading Image:Shot4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Academy Award for Best Picture

To: User talk:TheLastAmigo

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Academy Award for Best Picture

Hi. We keep reverting one another's edits on the Best Picture / Academy Award articles. The Broadway Melody of 1936 is not a sequel to any other film, as far as I know. Do you have different information? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Hey, Broadway Melody of 1936 is the sequel to The Broadway Melody, which won best picture in 1929. MGM actually made three sequels to The Broadway Melody: Broadway Melody of 1936 (1935), Broadway Melody of 1938 (1937), and Broadway Melody of 1940 (1940). Only Broadway Melody of 1936 was nominated for Best Picture. While none of the sequels had any characters that crossed over, they were all basically remakes/rip-offs of each other, shared the same titles, were made by the same producers, and were released by the same studio. Hope that clears it up for you. TheLastAmigo 05:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. I agree with all that you have said. However, that does not make the 1936 film a sequel of the 1929 film. It is simply, as you said, another film by the same producer, by the same studio, with a similar title. That's all. A sequel, as defined by Wikipedia -- or by the film industry, in general -- is when the second film is an extension of the story / plot from the first film. Things like The Godfather Parts 1, 2, 3 ... or The Lord of the Rings Parts 1, 2, 3. Etc. Things like that. That is, story/plot 3 derives from story/plot 2, which derives from story/plot 1. A film that is simply produced by the same producer and released by the same studio -- with no story, character, plot connection -- does not constitute a "sequel" -- as that term is generally understood in the film community. That would be tantamount to, say, calling The Passion of the Christ a sequel to Braveheart, simply because they were both produced by the same man and released by the same studio (for example, hypothetically). Thus, with the correct and appropriate use of the word "sequel", it is my information that The Bells of St. Mary's is the first sequel to be nominated for Best Picture. I have other sources that agree with this assessment. Your thoughts? Please let me know. Thanks. I would appreciate your input on this. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
I basically agree with all of your points, but there have been sequels to films that didn't continue the stories or have any of the same characters from previous films. Case in point: the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope film Road to Singapore (1940) was followed by five sequels, but none of them used any of the same characters or continued any of the stories from previous films. The same goes for all of the films starring the Marx Brothers, the Little Tramp, and George A. Romero's Dead Series; they are all considered sequels to previous films, but they are sequels in theme only. The same could be said about Broadway Melody of 1936. It was meant by the producers to be a follow-up to the original The Broadway Melody; it used the same themes, story elements, and title (they could have just as easily called it The Broadway Melody 2), even if it didn't use any of the same characters or continue the story of the previous film. In fact, Wikipedia says the following about sequels: "A sequel is a work of fiction in literature, film, and other creative works that is produced after a completed work, and is set in the same "universe", but at a later time. It usually continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings, although this is not always the case." By this definition, Broadway Melody of 1936 could be defined as a sequel to the earlier film. Another example of this would be The Lion in Winter, in which Peter O'Toole reprises his role of King Henry II from a previous film, Becket. Letters from Iwo Jima could be considered the sequel to Flags of our Fathers because Clint Eastwood meant for it to be viewed as an extension of an earlier work that he released three months prior. On the flip side, however, even though it uses the same characters, The Silence of the Lambs could probably not be viewed as the sequel to Manhunter because none of the cast (with the exception of Frankie Faizon, who plays different characters), production staff, and studio were the same.
The Passion of the Christ could not have been a sequel to Braveheart because the only link between the two films was Mel Gibson's involvement as director. With the possible exception that both Jesus and William Wallace were publically executed, they are not thematically similar. Additionally, The Passion was not meant to be viewed as a follow-up to Braveheart (and, by the way, they weren't released by the same studio. The Passion was released by Newmarket Films and Braveheart was released by Paramount Pictures). That would be akin to saying that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was the sequel to Jaws because Steven Spielberg was the director and were both released by Universal. I'm sure that you were aware that I wasn't making this argument and I frankly don't understand why you were implying that I was. Thoughts? Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:TheLastAmigo TheLastAmigo 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have finally found the time to reply to the above. Sorry that it took so long. Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying, and you see what I am saying. So, let me ask you this. There seem to be two "different types" of sequels. One, where the story line and plot continue ... for example, Rocky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Two, where there are these other more tenuous connections, but not necessarily a continuation of the story line and plot ... for example, the examples that you cite ... Broadway Melody, etc. Do you know of any different type of wording or semantics that would differentiate Type 1 sequels from Type 2 sequels? Essentially, some wording that would make this correct: The Bells of St. Mary's is the first __________ sequel to be nominated for Best Picture. (Fill in the blank.) Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners

To: User talk:TheLastAmigo

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors

Hello. Thanks for your thorough and prompt reply to my question about Best Picture Academy Award nominees that were sequels. (See User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Academy Award for Best Picture.) I will read your response thoroughly before I reply back to you on that issue. Thanks again. Coincidentally, however -- another question just surfaced for me. And, I was surprised to see the coincidence that I should direct this, my second question, to you -- of all Wikipedians. I noticed that you had made quite a few changes to the following article: List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. When I saw all of those new edits, especially the ones with red Wiki links, it reminded me of this comment that was made at the Talk Page for that article: Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors. That comment, essentially, asked editors to not add actors with red links (no Wiki articles) to that article's page. I remember thinking ... wow, all these new edits are certainly going to upset whoever made that Talk Page comment or suggestion. Then, lo and behold, I found that both parties were one and the same -- namely, you! That really surprised me. So, I was just curious. What prompted you to add all those new edits to the article, in light of your Talk Page concern? Or, conversely, why did that Talk Page issue concern you, in light of the fact that you subsequently added all those recent edits? I was just curious. Certainly, the two items are a contradiction in terms. Others might also be perplexed to see this. Perhaps you might want to add an updated comment to the Talk Page posting? Or perhaps just delete the original Talk Page post altogether? Either way, as it now stands, there are two contradictory messages out there -- both, ironically, from you. I was just curious about this, and would appreciate your feedback. I am assuming that you no longer support your own original post, and had a "change of heart" -- but I hate to assume things. So, please let me know if, indeed, you did have a change of heart on this issue. If so, I am curious why? I don't much substantively care one way or the other -- like I said, the situation perplexed and amused me -- and intrigued my curiosity as to how it all came about. That's all. Please fill me in on your thoughts. Thanks. With regard to this article (List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners), I don't really care much one way or the other -- to be honest. But, I would think it should be an article about big-name actors who have appeared in multiple Best Pictures ... as opposed to minor / extra's / "nobodies" who simply happened to chance upon minor ("extra") roles in multiple Best Pictures. In other words, it's vaguely interesting to know that a famous / well-known actor like Russell Crowe acted in 2 Best Pictures. The implication being that his great acting contributed to its Best Picture status -- in fact, multiple times. But, what's the relevance when some "no name" actor (some minor, insignificant extra) happened to chance into multiple minor / extra roles? I am just curious. Aren't all those red-link actors essentially minor extras ... insignificant "nobodies", as it were? Isn't that scenario exactly what your original Talk Page comment was attempting to address? Please let me know. Thanks. Also, I will reply to our discussion thread on Best Picture sequels in the few days or so, when I have more time to adequately do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

I added those extra names because someone else had made additions that appeared in red and then proceeded to create pages for those actors. In light of this, I decided to go ahead and add actors hoping that someone else would take the initiative to create pages for them. I also figured that if nobody did, I would erase them after a certain period of time had passed. I am the person who originally created this list, and when I first created it, I added all of those people who are listed in red. I thought it looked too cluttered, so I erased them all and added that message on the Talk Page. Upon re-editing the list, I noticed that some of the actors who didn't have Wikipedia pages when I first created the list suddenly did have pages. So after making these changes, I figured that one month was a good time-frame to leave them up and see if anyone would make pages for the actors (You'll also notice that I didn't make any additions to the list of actors that appeared in 2 Best Picture winners. Doing so would make the list way too long). Just so you know, I'm going to give it another week before I start erasing names. Hope that clears things up for you.TheLastAmigo 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I just came up with a better solution. The actors who were listed in red are now listed in the discussion page with an invitation to create pages for them. TheLastAmigo 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for the posting. Now, I see what you did -- that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I don't really care one way or the other, I had just thought the situation odd and wanted to understand it, that's all. So, with your explanation, I now understand how this came about and what your thinking was. Two things to mention to you: (1) one of the actors -- Gino Corrado -- now has a wiki article and a blue link, yet is still listed on the Talk Page, without having been transferred into the actual article. Thought you might want to know. And (2) ... just out of curiosity ... when you created this page, did you intend for it to be about recognizable-name actors who appeared in several Best Pictures? Or did you intend for it to be about "no-name" actors / extras? I am just curious. Yes, I realize that it is a subjective distinction as to what actor is a "recognizable name" versus a "no-name" -- but I was just wondering what your intent originally was. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi, it's me again. I had some free time and wanted to follow up on the above discussion. I am still curious as to your reply to the last question posed by me. Namely ... And (2) ... just out of curiosity ... when you created this page, did you intend for it to be about recognizable-name actors who appeared in several Best Pictures? Or did you intend for it to be about "no-name" actors / extras? I am just curious. Yes, I realize that it is a subjective distinction as to what actor is a "recognizable name" versus a "no-name" -- but I was just wondering what your intent originally was. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Leonardo DiCaprio

Hi, I wanted to let you know that actor templates are not appropriate for film articles due to over-templating, in which there can be a template per actor for the film. It also puts undue weight on an actor, even if they only had a small role in a film such as Leo in Critters 3. Director templates are the most appropriate because there is usually one person (sometimes two) that directs a film. Additionally, these directors are in always charge of the projects listed in their templates, where an actor may have anywhere from a lead role to a cameo. Actor templates have been deleted for this reason before, so I wanted to let you know the reason why. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pathfinderos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pathfinderos.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Leonardo DiCaprio

Template:Leonardo DiCaprio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)