Talk:Wizards (film)/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 23 September 2005 and 22 October 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Wizards (film)/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. (Ibaranoff24 12:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Why am I not being allowed to post links to the Petition Online website? I feel that the petitiononline.com page (Wizards on DVD petition) is important for the history of this 1977 film, as this was the petition that allowed the film to be re-released on DVD, but for some reason, Wikipedia does not allow users to link to pages from this website. (Ibaranoff24 04:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

I think it's because of linkspam, the fact that most links to pages on that site are to drive petitions, not for good encyclopedic reasons.--Prosfilaes 13:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see the petition, it's linked here, under "Successful Petitions." (Ibaranoff24 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
Then why don't you link to that page, instead of importating a large chunk of primary text?--Prosfilaes 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since it appears that the Petition Online block has been lifted, I'm adding the petition that got this classic released on DVD to the external links section. (Ibaranoff24 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

POV Issues and Brin

This shouldn't be a pro-Bakshi page; this should be an NPOV page. David Brin is a famous author who wrote some fairly well-known essays, and made a pointed comment about this film. That's worth noting here, and it certainly deserves more discussion then your insulting edit comment calling it vandalism.--Prosfilaes 05:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a POV statement made by a Lord of the Rings fan with way too much time on his hands, not a valid opinion from a noteworthy film critic. I've never heard of David Brin, and I sincerly doubt that his opinion is worth a rat's ass. (Ibaranoff24 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
I don't know where to start with that comment. Of course it's a POV statement, but it's entirely reasonable to report on POV statements. If you've never heard of David Brin, you have no grounds for judging his opinion. To dismiss a man for being a Lord of the Rings fan when his complaint is that Wizards shares "the commonalties of theme" with the Lord of the Rings is a touch absurd. In fact, in general to dismiss a man as a Lord of the Rings fan for unrelated criticisms on Wizards is a bit absurd. And to dismiss a professional writer writing for publication as having "way too much time on his hands" is likewise absurd.
David Brin is a fairly popular professional writer, and this essay, as far as I can tell, has achieved some notority. That makes this comment noteworthy. It's clear you don't like his opinion, but that doesn't invalidate it.--Prosfilaes 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He's an obscure writer. The essay is meaningless, and it doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. The fact that "some guy on some website didn't like this movie" isn't worth noting. (Ibaranoff24 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
  • He's a popular author who has won both a Hugo award and a Nebula award, both of the high awards in his field, and has continued to be nominated for such awards. It's not some guy on a website; it's an essay published Salon magazine. And it's not just "didn't like the movie", it's a critical analysis of the movie as the high point of romanticism and evil.--Prosfilaes 19:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that you would like to see it that way, but it's not. It's a POV statement. It's kind of like going onto the Lord of the Rings page and saying "some guy on some website somewhere called The Lord of the Rings 'The single worst book in the history of mankind'." That kind of comment doesn't belong on the LOTR page, and the "most evil thing since Nazism" comment doesn't belong on this page. (Ibaranoff24 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC))


  • It's not a POV statement. It's a statement of fact; he did write that. To continue to call this a POV statement is misunderstanding the nature of POV; as WP:NPOV says, "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." It's a little frustrating that you still dignify this as "some guy on some website somewhere" when it's a notable author publishing for a professional magazine.
  • It's not saying that it is the "single worst book in the history of mankind"; it's judging it on much more provocative and hence interesting grounds. Yes, if Harold Bloom or some other notable person chose to describe the malignant nature of Lord of the Rings, I would put that comment on the LotR page. Of course, this isn't one of the most successful books of the 20th century which is studied in academia and fandom; this is a minor movie that made $9 million and had to have a petition to get it to be released commercially. Brin is probably the most notable people in the world to publically make an interesting comment on Wizards.--Prosfilaes 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
David Brin is "some guy on some website." Bakshi and this film are far more well-known than David Brin or any of his writings. (Ibaranoff24 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC))
So Salon.com is just some website? An author who has won Hugos and Nebulas isn't well known? This is a POV issue; you are a fan of Bakshi, and are actively working to remove any criticism of him. That's not acceptable.--Prosfilaes 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If a person is a fan of a filmmaker, it is irrelevant. The fact is that you are repeatedly vandalizing the article. This IS a POV issue, but not the kind of POV issue you are trying to convince yourself of. The fact is that a POV statement by an unknown author on some website shouldn't be used as a source of criticism in an article. This action, and removing sections from articles are forms of vandalism. Don't kid yourself, pal. (Ibaranoff24 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC))
I will point again that your bias shines through when you call him an unknown author. If some website is Rottentomatos, you've applied different standards.--Prosfilaes 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can butt in here: The "Commentary" section is, to be blunt, horrendously biased and incomplete. To present only one extremely critical review is totally inadequate. However, I do not think that the section should be removed, nor should Brin's review not be mentioned. Ibaranoff: Rather than remove the section, please try to find other, favorable reviews from professional critics to expand the section, rather than removing it altogether. Additionally, please do not accuse people of vandalism- vandalism on Wikipedia has a very narrow definition, basically that the person in question must be acting in bad faith to denigrate the encyclopedia, which is not happening here. Prosifales: Please don't accuse others of removing things because they disagree with them, the section as it stands is quite horrid, and I fully understand why it was removed. Both of you: Please try to compromise rather than edit warring. Thanks.--Sean Black (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the section. The section as it stood was just fine; then Ibaranoff24 rewrote the article, moved the other text elsewhere, and deleted the quote. When I put it elsewhere, it got deleted in with an editorial comment calling it vandalism. I've put it next to the other critical commentary.--Prosfilaes 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The section as it stood was certainly not fine. It was extremely sloppily formatted. Where the David Brin quote is now is fine, because it's not mixed in with a bunch of other comments made by the guy who first started this article. I reorganized the thing because it felt extremely sloppy to have film trivia mixed with comments on the film's style, and what the film's message is supposed to be. Prosfilaes's edits WERE vandalism: he repeatedly deleted important information; if you're going to have that David Brin stuff in there, write the sentence properly so I don't interpret it as vandalism and delete it. I still don't think Brin's opinion is worth a damn, though, but Sean Black seems to have the proper format done in this article. (Ibaranoff24 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC))
The petition information is hardly important information, and I still don't think that a large and basically irrelevant primary source belongs in the text.--Prosfilaes 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It IS important information, and it DOES belong here. (Ibaranoff24 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

David Brin is a major, well-respected science fiction author. While he isn't a luminary on the level of Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov, he is at least as well known in science fiction circles as Tony Hillerman and Mary Higgins Clark are in mystery fiction. Applejuicefool 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Petition

Let's try to have a civil discussion here. No personal attacks, please.

I removed the section about the petition because I didn't want to imply that the petition caused the release without a proper citation, which was not present in the article. Now I see there's a citation to the commentary, so I'm (mostly) cool. I still think it's a bit much to put the full petition text in there. Is that really relevant? Plus, could we have an actual quotation from the commentary? I don't think I'm alone in being surprised that an online petition actually influenced anything, and continue to be skeptical (though I assume good faith). Staecker 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Listen to the commentary. Bakshi also makes this statement in several interviews. Here's one of them: [1] (205.172.40.13 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

The only reason this is being released on DVD is because of a petition. I'm sitting at home, minding my own business, and this thing comes into my e-mail asking if I would want to sign a petition to get Wizards on DVD. Absolutely! So I'm looking at all these lists of names, and the poor guys are sending it to me – they know how out of it I am – so I signed my own petition! And the son of a b****** did it! It must have helped, because I had a meeting with Fox and they said, "Well, how many people on the petition?" And Fox is doing a great job. I said, "Maybe there aren't 20 million on the petition, but you've got 20 million films that have got no petitions at all." They looked at me and they said, "You know…" (laughing) Look at all those films that aren't getting petitions! I said, "I'll take what I can get. I had nothing to do with this. So think about it." And they thought about it and thought about it, and they did it. I got a call one day that it was coming out, and I had to cheer because I didn't think that it was ever coming out.

Thanks- I'm convinced at least that Bakshi credits the petition, and I think the reference as of now in the article is great. Still don't want the full text in there. Staecker 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I've done some extensive grammatical cleanup in the film synopsis section; in particular I labored to bring the section in line with the convention for film synopses -- in which everything should be present-tense, not past (and never both at once, as the previous version was). I tried to keep the original language of the summary intact as much as possible.

I enjoyed 'Wizards', but I haven't seen it in several years -- so if there are any glaring plot errors resulting from my corrections, please feel free to let me know or to correct where appropriate! Skybright Daye 09:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)