This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox tag has been removed as article already has one. If you have any problems with this please post a message on my talk page. RWardy 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that a blow-by-blow description of the story is really not appropriate for a movie of this type (i.e. a made-for-TV movie without much of an afterlife). I don't know the film, so I can't do the editing myself (and I despise tagging, so I'm not going to slap a "Plot too long" tag on it), but someone who knows the film might want to take a wack at cutting the plot section down by half, at least. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What the plot needs is sections. I suggest the following...
In looking at Anticipation's draft, the last paragraph could also be in its own section called Landmarks of New York.
What do you think about that idea? I don't know if there are references, other than the film itself, to these divisions, however they would break up the plot section a bit and make it more readable. - LA @ 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As there seems to be some debate as to the value of including some of the information about Jennifer Garner's involvement in this film, I thought I'd better set out my views on why this information should be included in this article.
While it's true that actors and actresses often change their appearance for specific parts, and that this is usually not all that notable, some changes can be notable for various reasons. For example, if an actor or actress temporarily changes the length or color of their hair for a role, then that's probably not notable - unless the change is very unusual for some reason (such as women completely shaving their head for a role). However, if they gain or lose a significant amount of weight for a specific role, then that surely is notable and worthy of mention, isn't it? And isn't that also true for other things which may be outside of the accepted societal norms at the time?
So, the reason why I believe mention of Jennifer Garner having her ears pierced for her part in this film are as follows:
1) The accepted societal norm (at least in the USA and Europe) is that women typically have their ears pierced as children or teenagers, while Jennifer didn't have her's pierced especially for this role until she was in her late-20s - Which places her outside of the societal norm and is therefore slightly unusual, and may be considered by some users here to be worthy of note.
2) Jennifer had her ears pierced for the very first time ever specifically for her role in this film. She didn't get them done because she'd decided that she wanted to - she got them done because she needed to have them done specifically for this film. Again, the fact that she had them done specifically for this film is something which is directly and uniquely related to this film, and therefore may be considered notable by some users.
3) Having had her ears pierced, she then let them heal up again after filming was completed, and did not keep them open - Which is again slightly unusual behaviour, as most women will keep their ears pierced once they've had them done, and so could be considered notable in relation to this film.
4) The information comes from a properly referenced article from a Sunday suppliment to a major UK-based newspaper, and so meets the guidelines for verifiability, referencing and sources. Unfortunately, as the magazine does not have a dedicated website containing the article, the only online source available is scans of the article on a long-established Jennifer Garner fan site, which cannot be used as a reference due to copyright issues. However, the scans do exist, and can be viewed by anyone who does a few minutes searching for them if there are any doubts as to the genuineness of the information.
So, to summarise, I believe the information merits inclusion because this was something slightly unusual that Jennifer did specifically for this film, and the only reason she did it when she did appears to be her role in this film. To me, that makes this information notable and worthy of inclusion in this article. If you have other views on this, I'm happy to hear them, although I think you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise!! Sandi saraya ( talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember that Johnny Depp had some teeth replaced by gold teeth or capped with gold for Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, but there's no mention of it in the article. If something that drastic isn't worth mentioning, I don't think pierced ears are either. Maybe if they had been really pierced in a scene in the film it might be worth mentioning the piercing was real and not faked, but otherwise it seems very trivial. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious - with so many articles about good movies needing work, why is anyone wasting time on schlock like this? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Predictably histrionic -- and quite inordinately lengthy -- account of New York's geologically improbable destruction by a massive earthquake, which stretches credibility still further by positing grizzled ex-fireman Tom Skerritt as the city's best hope of salvation.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) (That is all the citation has, FYI.)Hope these are of use. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aftershock: Earthquake in New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox tag has been removed as article already has one. If you have any problems with this please post a message on my talk page. RWardy 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that a blow-by-blow description of the story is really not appropriate for a movie of this type (i.e. a made-for-TV movie without much of an afterlife). I don't know the film, so I can't do the editing myself (and I despise tagging, so I'm not going to slap a "Plot too long" tag on it), but someone who knows the film might want to take a wack at cutting the plot section down by half, at least. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What the plot needs is sections. I suggest the following...
In looking at Anticipation's draft, the last paragraph could also be in its own section called Landmarks of New York.
What do you think about that idea? I don't know if there are references, other than the film itself, to these divisions, however they would break up the plot section a bit and make it more readable. - LA @ 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As there seems to be some debate as to the value of including some of the information about Jennifer Garner's involvement in this film, I thought I'd better set out my views on why this information should be included in this article.
While it's true that actors and actresses often change their appearance for specific parts, and that this is usually not all that notable, some changes can be notable for various reasons. For example, if an actor or actress temporarily changes the length or color of their hair for a role, then that's probably not notable - unless the change is very unusual for some reason (such as women completely shaving their head for a role). However, if they gain or lose a significant amount of weight for a specific role, then that surely is notable and worthy of mention, isn't it? And isn't that also true for other things which may be outside of the accepted societal norms at the time?
So, the reason why I believe mention of Jennifer Garner having her ears pierced for her part in this film are as follows:
1) The accepted societal norm (at least in the USA and Europe) is that women typically have their ears pierced as children or teenagers, while Jennifer didn't have her's pierced especially for this role until she was in her late-20s - Which places her outside of the societal norm and is therefore slightly unusual, and may be considered by some users here to be worthy of note.
2) Jennifer had her ears pierced for the very first time ever specifically for her role in this film. She didn't get them done because she'd decided that she wanted to - she got them done because she needed to have them done specifically for this film. Again, the fact that she had them done specifically for this film is something which is directly and uniquely related to this film, and therefore may be considered notable by some users.
3) Having had her ears pierced, she then let them heal up again after filming was completed, and did not keep them open - Which is again slightly unusual behaviour, as most women will keep their ears pierced once they've had them done, and so could be considered notable in relation to this film.
4) The information comes from a properly referenced article from a Sunday suppliment to a major UK-based newspaper, and so meets the guidelines for verifiability, referencing and sources. Unfortunately, as the magazine does not have a dedicated website containing the article, the only online source available is scans of the article on a long-established Jennifer Garner fan site, which cannot be used as a reference due to copyright issues. However, the scans do exist, and can be viewed by anyone who does a few minutes searching for them if there are any doubts as to the genuineness of the information.
So, to summarise, I believe the information merits inclusion because this was something slightly unusual that Jennifer did specifically for this film, and the only reason she did it when she did appears to be her role in this film. To me, that makes this information notable and worthy of inclusion in this article. If you have other views on this, I'm happy to hear them, although I think you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise!! Sandi saraya ( talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember that Johnny Depp had some teeth replaced by gold teeth or capped with gold for Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, but there's no mention of it in the article. If something that drastic isn't worth mentioning, I don't think pierced ears are either. Maybe if they had been really pierced in a scene in the film it might be worth mentioning the piercing was real and not faked, but otherwise it seems very trivial. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious - with so many articles about good movies needing work, why is anyone wasting time on schlock like this? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Predictably histrionic -- and quite inordinately lengthy -- account of New York's geologically improbable destruction by a massive earthquake, which stretches credibility still further by positing grizzled ex-fireman Tom Skerritt as the city's best hope of salvation.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) (That is all the citation has, FYI.)Hope these are of use. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aftershock: Earthquake in New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)