Talk:The Sound of Music (film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:38, 10 March 2015 editWowee Zowee public (talk \| contribs)316 edits →popular with people, not with industry ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:09, 11 March 2015 edit undoWowee Zowee public (talk \| contribs)316 edits →popular with people, not with industry Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	::::::First, what happens in articles about politicians has nothing to do with this situation. See ]. Next, the item in question has ] problems. I agree with the statements by BL and B735 that the info is does not belong in the article. ]\|] 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)		::::::First, what happens in articles about politicians has nothing to do with this situation. See ]. Next, the item in question has ] problems. I agree with the statements by BL and B735 that the info is does not belong in the article. ]\|] 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::But why? Is it because it makes the film look bad to supporters of the film? No, it is of great interests to readers to an otherwise plain article. ] (]) 20:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)		::::::::::But why? Is it because it makes the film look bad to supporters of the film? No, it is of great interests to readers to an otherwise plain article. ] (]) 20:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

			===mixed opinions===
			What is notable about this film is that the commercial success contrasts sharply with some very negative industry opinions of the film. We should not sanitize and hide this, though we can write it tactfully.

			This fact does not mean that the film is garbage. ] (]) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:09, 11 March 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Sound of Music (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Christian / German / War / Core / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Possible conflict of interest

If you like something, sometimes you will fight to keep it looking pure and nice. This happens with articles of politicians a lot.

We need to keep this in mind. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

popular with people, not with industry

An important point for the reader is to know that the film was a huge success from a money standpoint and very popular, but people in the industry thought it was lightweight or worse. Kelly kicked out Lehman and yelled at him that the script was a piece of shit. Others declined for the same reason. Even Burt Lancaster remarked that they must really need the money to make this film.

This is not to say the film is garbage but to document the history of it. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Gene Kelly's comment does not add to the context. First of all the Wall Street Journal does not quote Kelly, it is quoting Ernest Lehmann who is quoting Kelly. Second of all it is an apocryphal soundbite: even if it is true it does not really tell us anything about why Kelly actually turned down the film. Finally, you are giving undue WP:WEIGHT to Kelly's comment. Other people such as Stanley Donen and Vincent Donehue also turned it down but you do not quote their responses (as found here). Why is Kelly's comment so much more important than the other responses? It is sufficient just to say they declined the film; how they articulated it does not really matter. Also, Burt Lancaster's views are irrelevant unless he was approached to participate in the film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me!!! And thanks for the additional sources, which I will add. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How they articulated it does not really matter.

Not true. President JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." According to your logic, Misplaced Pages should report it as "JFK asked people to do things for the country". See! Another example, President Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall" but writing in Misplaced Pages "Reagan advocated the removal of the Berlin Wall." Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan's comments above, that the inclusion of the Kelly and Lancaster opinions does not add anything to the context, and more important, it gives undue WP:WEIGHT to trivial details that distract rather than enhance. The article is about the film, not about what Burt Lancaster said to Ernest Lehman at a party. If you read the article, you'll see that the film generated mixed opinions from industry professionals, film critics, and the public. You'll also see that it already mentions that Kelly turned down the project, and that the first director, William Wyler, hated the Broadway musical. Finally, you'll see that some film critics attacked the film upon its release. But you also see a clear love for the film by industry professions, the director and his team, other film critics and trade papers, and the public. I recommend that you review WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RRNO. Bede735 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

False accusation. I compromised and left out Burt Lancaster's comments. On the other hand, with world events, the Wikpedia articles often has President Obama's reactions even though he had nothing to do with it. So no relations is an acceptable way. However, I am not putting that in now so please, please do not falsely accuse me.

I recommend that you review meatpuppetry. We have to seek the best way to write the article as Misplaced Pages is not a vote. I am open to seeking the best way to convey the difficulties in finding a director, which doesn't happen in all films. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Several directors turned it down and yet you only think the comments by one are noteworthy. So far you have failed to explain why Kelly's comment should be promoted above the others, and you have also failed to explain why it is necessary to quote them at all. This article is about the film, not Gene Kelly's career decisions, so it is sufficient to state who turned it down and leave it at that. If you wish to reinstate the content then please obtain a WP:Consensus to do so. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

First, what happens in articles about politicians has nothing to do with this situation. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Next, the item in question has WP:UNDUE problems. I agree with the statements by BL and B735 that the info is does not belong in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But why? Is it because it makes the film look bad to supporters of the film? No, it is of great interests to readers to an otherwise plain article. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

mixed opinions

What is notable about this film is that the commercial success contrasts sharply with some very negative industry opinions of the film. We should not sanitize and hide this, though we can write it tactfully.

This fact does not mean that the film is garbage. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: