Talk:The Hurt Locker - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inurhead (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 14 August 2009 (→Re-open: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:47, 14 August 2009 by Inurhead (talk | contribs) (→Re-open: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Film: War / American Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Editing BADLY needed

Can someone who isn't a shill for this movie or a overhyper fan of the stars get this into decent shape? Opening graphs should be short, all the reviews need to be moved into a critical reaction section.

24.24.244.132 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Could still use a trim, though, to edit down the reactions. --Ckatz_spy 08:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Regarding the use of the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, I do not think that it is appropriate per WP:LEAD. First of all, the phrase is vague; what award, and what kind of award? It does not specify a difference between Best Picture at the Academy Awards and Best Summer Film at the Teen Choice Awards. WP:LEAD states, "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Also, "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." This is why the specific addendum was added to MOS:FILM; a lot of articles erroneously start out this way. Same with the usage of taglines and their promotional language. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Year of Release

It's just one of the points of contention, but let's actually talk about it. Several users (including me) prefer 2008, noting that the film was released in a limited manner in 2008. Several sources ( use 2008 as the release date. Others, including Inurhead, prefer 2009, saying that the film was released in the US in 2009 and that the limited release doesn't count.

After some wandering around, I found WP:FilmRelease, which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FilmRelease specifically says that the release date should be based on when it was released in the country that produced the film (there is no hierarchy placed on that in that WP), and specifically states an "English-speaking country" (since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages, not the Italian version). This is an American film. It is the standard that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has adhered to for decades that a release date is considered to be the date the film is released in Los Angeles, California ("rule 2"). AMPAS is a higher authority than unpaid Misplaced Pages freelance contributors on this issue. So, for all lists of "2009 films" which Misplaced Pages readers will be likely searching and choosing Academy Award nominees from, it would be wrong and even misleading to exclude The Hurt Locker which is a front runner by many critics accounts in this 2009 season. It seems the intention of those who are trying to list the film as "2008" (based on limited film festival previews in 2008), are trying to do damage to the film's viewership and odds at receiving awards, which also could result in fiscal harm to the film. That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons. Inurhead (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

Please stop with the spurious and unwarranted claims that anyone who objects to your opinion is trying to "harm" the film. While we are certainly not here to provide misleading information, we are also most definitely not here to support the film's press department, or as shills for the cast and crew. --Ckatz_spy 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you must agree, if you are not trying to mislead anyone, that The Hurt Locker should link to the release date page which is 2009, which shows its release listed THERE and not on 2008. It is not listed on the 2008 page because it was not released in the U.S. in 2008. So it should link to the proper page, which is 2009 and not 2008. The page shows U.S. Release dates, not Italian, not film festivals... Inurhead (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not addressing the release date, I'm addressing your apparent desire to control the content of the article, and your desire to weed out any material you do not agree with. This is compounded by your insistence on reverting valid edits while misleading edit summaries, your habit of making unjustified accusations against other editors, and your continued attempts to move this article from an encyclopedic treatment of the subject to that of a press release. I'd ask that you please reveal any connections you might have with the film or its cast and crew, because all of your edits to date demonstrate the distinct probability that you have a conflict of interest here. Having a COI does not preclude participation in the process, but it is important to ensure that your contributions are properly understood. --Ckatz_spy 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally came to the talk page for this, Inurhead. It's much easier to discuss this here than through reverts that eventually would have gotten people blocked. Misplaced Pages only works when people talk about disagreements - back and forth revert wars just don't work (See WP:3RR). That said ...

WP:FilmRelease does not say to use only the English release dates. That is ONE of the release dates that should be mentioned. The list is which release dates should be mentioned, as some films can have a massive list of release dates. There is no question that the film was first released in 2008. That IS the release date of the film, even if that was a small release. It was subsequently released in the US in 2009 after the film festivals. Both of those dates should be mentioned in the info box. For the article, the release date should be the initial release, but I think mentioned in the header that it was released in the US in 2009 makes perfect sense. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note I have removed the "reference" that was added to the "2009" in the lead sentence. First off, the link was not working; more importantly, after tracking down the rules in question (Academy Award Rule 2 and 3), they do not verify the year of release for The Hurt Locker. The rules only serve to outline the Academy's requirements for a film, one of which is that it must have a theatrical release in the Los Angeles area during a certain year in order to qualify for that year's awards. The rules specifically outline the conditions under which a film can have prior screenings outside of the United States. Thus, it can debut in Italy in 2008 and still qualify for the 2009 Oscars as long as its first US screening is in 2009. --Ckatz_spy 02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant links, using the 2008 Oscars; the 2009 rules do not appear to be out yet:

--Ckatz_spy 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-open

I am reopening this discussion. The film is clearly a 2008 film. It's first theatrical release was in Italy in 2008. Please see Wikipedia_talk:FILM#Year_of_release that I recently asked the project. Although its first theatrical release in America is 2009, the film is clearly a 2008 film. Also see earth (2007 film) as another example. BOVINEBOY2008 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with treating it as a 2008 film. Variety says in a 2008 article, "The indie pic, which was shot in Jordan and was produced by Shapiro and Nicolas Chartier's Voltage Pictures, goes out in Italy via Warner Bros. on Oct. 10." This is the first public release. I recommend clarifying in the article that while it was released first in Italy in 2008, it opened up to many more locations in 2009. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems very logical. So a sentence like "The film was released in the U.S. on June 26, 2009 in New York and Los Angeles" should be expanded to "The film was first released in the 2008 Venice Film Festival where it was followed by a theatrical release on October 10, 2008. It was then released to the United States on June 26, 2009 in New York and Los Angeles and more internationally throughtout 2009." Something like that? BOVINEBOY2008 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the second thought, there is another way to go about it. 2009 is the year that The Hurt Locker truly made its splash across cinemas despite its premiere in Italy in 2008. Judging from the critical acclaim so far, it will probably be on "best of 2009" lists like the ones at Metacritic. What we could do in the lead section is to leave out the release year in the opening sentence and explain later in the section that it was released in Italy in 2008 and released in many more territories in 2009. We can also keep the 2009 in film category. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but does the release in Italy not count? I am confused at why we are making an exception here. It is clearly first released 2008. I may be wrong, that's just my opinion that we shouldn't ignore a release in an entire country. BOVINEBOY2008 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes with guidelines, exceptions can be made. :) I think that there is an exception here because while it was released publicly in Italy in 2008, the film did not make itself truly known public until 2009. I say this after assessing the current headlines about the film and not finding any English-language headlines about the film showing in Italy circa October 2008. It seems to work best for Misplaced Pages to treat this as "popularly" a 2009 film, but we should recognize in the lead section its 2008 Italian release to offset the big 2009 debut. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense to me. BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So I am restoring link to 2009 in film. Since you guys are in such a "good" mood. I am also restoring page to prior to edit war. Structure was fine. The plot material added in the interim was original and not sourced. It is therefore going and restored with consensus plot that has remained for months. Cast is already listed to the right and mentioned throughout article. Doesn't need another list of them in middle of article. Summit picked up the film at Toronto, so info that it was not picked up there or inferring that there was a problem is missleading. Bovineboy, you are new to contributing to this page, so please do not revert. Same to Ckatz's other buddies like Erik. Thanks. Inurhead (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Minor edits

Inurhead, please do not check the Minor Edit box when making significant changes to the article. These, , , , were not minor edits. There's already enough puff in the article, please don't try to hide changes as minor when they clearly aren't. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continues to mark all of his edits as minor. I'm not sure why, and he's offered no explanation for why he's doing this. I normally have my watchlist set to ignore minor edits, but because of his actions, I cannot. Aside from WQA, any suggestions from other users? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a conducive situation, judging from messages on this talk page and from the edit summaries. I am also watching this article now (mainly because of the " in film" skirmish), so what we can do is raise specific issues on this talk page and determine consensus with multiple editors, not just the one. (We can notify WT:FILM for additional opinions.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Undo weight in negative reviews

Rottentomatoes has exactly two less than fresh reviews of this film and the reception section quotes both of them. 71.176.83.157 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Yes. But it has been declared "certified fresh" by RT. Which means that a SUPER MAJORITY OF MAJOR CRITICS have rated the film highly and only two have negatively reviewed. Again, same with Metacritic which has stamped it with the "universally acclaimed" status based on the gathering of scores of major critics. Thus I am restoring "universal acclaim", "award-winning" (because it has "won awards" and because it has been CALLED THAT by news sources) and "certified fresh" status to the article. And I seriously question why certain people on here want to strip the film of its acclaim. Don't you guys have something better to do, like a "birther" argument to attend? Inurhead (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it says "universal acclaim" on MetaCritic doesn't mean it is universally acclaimed; that's just a buzzword within MetaCritic's own rating heirarchy. Likewise, as many users have pointed out, even if these things were true it is still not appropriate to put them in the first sentence of the article; it comes across as non-neutral editing, peacock words, and, worst of all, advertising/promotion. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found over 300 instances of the use of "universally acclaimed" in just one search on Misplaced Pages and almost 14,000 instances of the term "critically acclaimed". I will change to "critically" acclaimed, since that seems to be the preferred majority terminology for whatever reason (despite the fact that Metacritic uses "universal acclaim" as a documented achievement in the compiling of reviews of major critics). I'm going to change it in the article unless someone can explain why facts can't be added to an article. Acclaim is not something that is invented, nor "peacock" when it is real and documented as it is in this article. Inurhead (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Universal" means everyone. Unless you can prove that 100% of people in the world have "acclaimed" this film, it's not appropriate language for an encyclopedia—like I said above, it's just the name of one of the levels in MetaCritic's scale, not an actual description.

As for "critically-acclaimed", language such as "X film has received critical acclaim" is appropriate in the Reception section of the article, but is not necessary in the first sentence. The first sentence is not the place to advertise a film, it's only a place for defining the topic. The basic definition of the topic is not "universal film", it is just 'film'—that is how you define what the article is about, it's about a film.

I have removed your addition because you didn't wait for any comment before making it. Like I said already, do not edit war. You should not be editing this part of the article at all, you should be keeping to the talk page. If you make another controversial edit you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the lede should be kept pretty neutral. And while I agree that this film is getting some exceptionally good reviews, the article shouldn't read like something from a film industry magazine. Starting off the Reception section by saying that it's "critically acclaimed" fits with a more "encyclopedia" type feel, to me. The film has gotten some extremely positive reviews, and I'm thinking that's got to be unusual. There's a pretty good number of quotes from the reviews, but they're mostly about the film. After a while, it starts to look like an advertisement, with a dozen versions of "Film is good". I'm going to see if I can find any comments about the extremely high ratings this film is getting. FT is well over 90% - that's got to be pretty rare!

Here's some of the other areas I think can be improved

Small plot section (the lede is almost as long as the plot!)
Revamp reception section to cut down on number of quotes
Look for additional material about impact of film
Reduce use of "industry" language not in quotes ("Bomb-squad actioner", "A-listers")
Lots of references - do we need that many?
Prune external links

I'll post any changes here before making them if I think there's any chance of disagreement. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my edits

Hello, I wanted to explain the edits I've made to the article so we can discuss them if necessary.

Steve added more details for how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic present their scores because not all readers will be familiar with the websites. We cannot assume that they know how the websites work or that they will go to the websites to learn how they work, so we can take a few extra words to explain this right here, right now.
I separated "Overview" into "Cast" and "Production". This way, we can build up the "Cast" section to have real-world context about the actors and their roles (see Apt Pupil (film)#Cast as an example). Also, "Production" is the typical name for a section covering the background of a film.
Lastly, I removed citations from the lead section because they are unnecessary for the most basic information about the film. Sometimes citations are used in lead sections to back controversial statements, but with this film, there is nothing that can't be already cited in the article body.

Please let me know if there are any issues with my changes! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New change: I renamed "Box office" to "Theatrical run" so it could encompass details about the festival screenings, and I moved the critics' opinions below it in a "Critics" subsection. I also added detail about Venice and Toronto and the public release in Italy. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I merged "Premieres and festival screenings" under the "Release" section. I'm not sure if every festival needs to be mentioned; it's borderline indiscriminate. It may be worth combining them in one sentence, saying, "The Hurt Locker screened at the Zurich Film Festival, the Mar del Plata Film Festival, the Fifth Dubai International Film Festival, etc..." and move on from there. For what it's worth, it would help to clean up the citations so readers can see the works and the publishers for each footnote. For example, you can see the Variety details. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank SoSaysChappy for expanding the "Plot" section. I also ask Inurhead to discuss the changes made by others beside him to the article in recent days. For example, the lead section does not require full-blown citation, and the "Plot" section needed expansion. We can discuss the structure of the film festivals, the theatrical run, and the critical reception, but they were combined under one section since it was related to how outsiders received it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

James's rank?

Anyone know a good site that can verify James's exact rank? He's called everything from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant to Sergeant First Class (E5 thru E7) on pages all over the internet. From my memory, he's simply called "Sergeant" in the film, but I'm not sure whether or not the Army might still refer to an E6 or E7 simply as "Sergeant". Also, in the movie, Sanborn (an E5) doesn't think twice about punching James, something he might be more hesitant about if James outranked him (or then again, maybe not...either way, that's just a personal observation of mine, and something that can't be taken into account when deciding on what to call him in the article). If there are conflicting sources that verify conflicting ranks of the character, would it be best to just go by how many chevrons appear on the insignia of his uniform (in which case, we would need multiple confirmations from several reliable viewers/editors)? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

His insignia throughout the film consistently corroborates Sergeant First Class (E-7), as the article claims. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: