Cowboys & Aliens has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content is identical to the synopsis on the DreamWorks site. rhyre ( talk) 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that the movie is based on the graphic novel, just because it was released earlier? The only reason the graphic novel was made is because the movie got stuck in development. The graphic novel is basically based on the then in limbo movie, with this movie being a new script based on the original movie concept. Xeworlebi ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like firefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.44.144 ( talk) 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I realize the section is sourced, but it's poorly written. Describing the entirety of every trailer seems a little excessive. -- Boycool ( talk) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Altitude2010 ( talk · contribs) was reported at WP:ANI#Cowboys & Aliens. An admin warned him not to edit war. Can another editor please restore the concise consensus-supported writeup? I'd rather not make it seem that it is just about me and him. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Altitude2010 ( talk · contribs) provided a shorter draft, but it still engages in proseline. He said this on the talk page. I still prefer my draft, obviously, since it opens with an overview and does not just mention posters and trailers as they appear. It also talked about the marketing intent of the studio. In his draft, the websites used to describe the details are not very reliable in the sense that any blogger can say, "Oh, it looks like this and that!" The information in my draft came from reliable sources and provided more valuable commentary than comparing posters (similar "except [for] the angle and the color scheme"). What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The article has been primarily edited by Altitude2010 ( talk · contribs), and I am concerned that his edits fail to make the article encyclopedic. Here are a list of my concerns:
I plan to clean up the article soon but am concerned that there will be similar resistance from the primary contributor like with the "Marketing" section. I ask other editors to indicate what they think should be cleaned up, if anything. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Something that's always bothered me about this article is that every quote is preceded by a colon rather than a comma. I changed it at one point, but Altitude reverted it (manually, I think), saying that colons are used for long quotations. However, this article uses it for every quotation, including those like the one from Jon Favreau in "Cast", which consists of one sentence. Also, if this is such an official grammatical rule, why is this article the only one on Wikipedia that follows it? -- Boycool ( talk) 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Any ideas on what to do with "Science fiction Western"? I think it has good content, but it is out of place at the end of the "Production" section. I think parts of it could be transplanted into the other subsections. For example, we could talk about the director's and writers' intents shortly after they came on board ("Development"), and we could talk about Craig riding on a horse and the CG aliens in "Filming". Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to say I'm not a fan of the current cast section. The information about the different actors and characters should be in the cast list, not put in a jumbled mess beneath in. Perhaps even ditch the bullet format like at Scream (film). -- Boycool ( talk) 21:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that for upcoming films, if their articles are referencing an official synopsis released by the studio, the section heading should be "Synopsis". A synopsis is defined as a brief plot summary, and it will naturally lack spoilers. When the film is released, a not-so-brief plot summary can replace the synopsis and rename the section as "Plot or "Plot summary". It is a threshold to cross when the film is released, and the scope of the section is redefined because a fuller summary is verifiable by audiences. What do others prefer? Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
We could use a picture of Plaza Blanca, or "The White Place", in the article. On Flickr, there are these images. If we can ask the copyright holder to release them under the proper CC licensing, we can use it in the article and perhaps others. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the following passage
should be kept in one form or another. Comments on how the film matches the original author's vision from the original author's mouth seem perfectly appropriate to the film's article. Perhaps it could be summarized and merged somewhere else in the prose rather than just removing it outright? -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
References
The Los Angeles Times has a pretty lengthy article about this film here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I found production notes on the film that may prove helpful in developing the article. Here is the link in PDF format. ( SuperSonic2000 ( talk) 06:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC))
I removed this section, because it is only 1 review that is cited and that is not the critical reception but one persons POV. re-add section when there are some more critics out with their reviews! noclador ( talk) 02:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a professional film critic, in the normal sense of the world "professional". That would imply that they have a degree of some sort in "film criticism", which frankly is just a silly concept. They only give opinions, nothing more. The person who cuts my yard is then also a "professional grass artist". Right? Right. Let's drop the pretense here folks. Film critics are just people paid to give an opinion. Not a "better" or more "professional" opinion. It's just a job they got, somehow. But not because they have a degree in the field and have been through some form of formal certification process. The title means nothing. Therefore, each opinion is worth the same as any other. Therefore, the original comment stands on its own merit. I'm not changing anything, but the original comment is correct. A single "review" should never be allowed for that reason. 98.194.39.86 ( talk) 04:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Jon Favreau decided to have a viral advertisement project where he had the popular Youtuber FreddieW create his own video inspired by the film, about a week prior to the release of the video. The actual video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YsRO6G7Ks 98.231.11.167 ( talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When asked by Howard Stern if the film cost $180 million to make, Jon said that was not true and that the budget was $163 million (at 1:40), however the Howard Stern website says $153 million. [1] How do we source this? Mercury News says $180 million. [2]. The Los Angeles Times did not give a figure in its weekly Movie Projector write-up. [3]— Mike Allen 03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it a "bracelet" or a "wristband" or a "gauntlet weapon" or what? We need to be consistent.
Also, the rock formations at the "final battle" site look an awful lot like the Chiricahua National Monument, and I think the generic "Indians" were referred to as Chiricahua Apaches. Did anybody else catch that? Paulburnett ( talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Cowboys & Aliens. Favonian ( talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Cowboys & Aliens (film) → Cowboys & Aliens – Main topic. The only other links on the disambig page are the comic and some British album. Since the comic was developed for the movie, and most people have no idea there even was a comic, I think it would be fine just to call this article Cowboys & Aliens and have a hatnote to Cowboys & Aliens (disambiguation). -- Boycool ( talk) 22:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
These are two good sources to use in the "Design and effects" section: 1, 2. I would add them myself, but I kinda screwed up my left arm last night. -- Boycool ( talk) 14:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that movie was a huge box-office bomb, but not successful in the box office either. What do you think? BattleshipMan ( talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MathewTownsend ( talk · contribs) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Will start this review shortly. MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
...in the script? "The aliens ... are ... mining gold to power their machines." How does one use gold as a power source? WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has a picture of Indiana Jones' fedora why exactly? 82.26.78.212 ( talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing found at posted link. I'm sorry, but the picture comes across as a little fan-boyish. Yes, we get that Harrison Ford also played Indiana Jones in a different movie franchise and wore a different hat. Is this photo really anything more than trivia crow-barred in at the flimsiest excuse? 82.26.78.212 ( talk) 19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Still in the article and still a weird choice. Although the nearby article text does explain that the filmmakers did not want to give Ford a hat that would remind audiences of Indiana Jones, but that is not a good reason to include a picture of a hat that is not used in this film. -- 109.77.192.162 ( talk) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Cowboys & Aliens. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2011/07/27/cowboys_vs_aliens/index.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cowboys & Aliens. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Cowboys & Aliens has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content is identical to the synopsis on the DreamWorks site. rhyre ( talk) 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that the movie is based on the graphic novel, just because it was released earlier? The only reason the graphic novel was made is because the movie got stuck in development. The graphic novel is basically based on the then in limbo movie, with this movie being a new script based on the original movie concept. Xeworlebi ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like firefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.44.144 ( talk) 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I realize the section is sourced, but it's poorly written. Describing the entirety of every trailer seems a little excessive. -- Boycool ( talk) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Altitude2010 ( talk · contribs) was reported at WP:ANI#Cowboys & Aliens. An admin warned him not to edit war. Can another editor please restore the concise consensus-supported writeup? I'd rather not make it seem that it is just about me and him. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Altitude2010 ( talk · contribs) provided a shorter draft, but it still engages in proseline. He said this on the talk page. I still prefer my draft, obviously, since it opens with an overview and does not just mention posters and trailers as they appear. It also talked about the marketing intent of the studio. In his draft, the websites used to describe the details are not very reliable in the sense that any blogger can say, "Oh, it looks like this and that!" The information in my draft came from reliable sources and provided more valuable commentary than comparing posters (similar "except [for] the angle and the color scheme"). What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The article has been primarily edited by Altitude2010 ( talk · contribs), and I am concerned that his edits fail to make the article encyclopedic. Here are a list of my concerns:
I plan to clean up the article soon but am concerned that there will be similar resistance from the primary contributor like with the "Marketing" section. I ask other editors to indicate what they think should be cleaned up, if anything. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Something that's always bothered me about this article is that every quote is preceded by a colon rather than a comma. I changed it at one point, but Altitude reverted it (manually, I think), saying that colons are used for long quotations. However, this article uses it for every quotation, including those like the one from Jon Favreau in "Cast", which consists of one sentence. Also, if this is such an official grammatical rule, why is this article the only one on Wikipedia that follows it? -- Boycool ( talk) 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Any ideas on what to do with "Science fiction Western"? I think it has good content, but it is out of place at the end of the "Production" section. I think parts of it could be transplanted into the other subsections. For example, we could talk about the director's and writers' intents shortly after they came on board ("Development"), and we could talk about Craig riding on a horse and the CG aliens in "Filming". Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to say I'm not a fan of the current cast section. The information about the different actors and characters should be in the cast list, not put in a jumbled mess beneath in. Perhaps even ditch the bullet format like at Scream (film). -- Boycool ( talk) 21:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that for upcoming films, if their articles are referencing an official synopsis released by the studio, the section heading should be "Synopsis". A synopsis is defined as a brief plot summary, and it will naturally lack spoilers. When the film is released, a not-so-brief plot summary can replace the synopsis and rename the section as "Plot or "Plot summary". It is a threshold to cross when the film is released, and the scope of the section is redefined because a fuller summary is verifiable by audiences. What do others prefer? Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
We could use a picture of Plaza Blanca, or "The White Place", in the article. On Flickr, there are these images. If we can ask the copyright holder to release them under the proper CC licensing, we can use it in the article and perhaps others. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the following passage
should be kept in one form or another. Comments on how the film matches the original author's vision from the original author's mouth seem perfectly appropriate to the film's article. Perhaps it could be summarized and merged somewhere else in the prose rather than just removing it outright? -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
References
The Los Angeles Times has a pretty lengthy article about this film here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I found production notes on the film that may prove helpful in developing the article. Here is the link in PDF format. ( SuperSonic2000 ( talk) 06:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC))
I removed this section, because it is only 1 review that is cited and that is not the critical reception but one persons POV. re-add section when there are some more critics out with their reviews! noclador ( talk) 02:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a professional film critic, in the normal sense of the world "professional". That would imply that they have a degree of some sort in "film criticism", which frankly is just a silly concept. They only give opinions, nothing more. The person who cuts my yard is then also a "professional grass artist". Right? Right. Let's drop the pretense here folks. Film critics are just people paid to give an opinion. Not a "better" or more "professional" opinion. It's just a job they got, somehow. But not because they have a degree in the field and have been through some form of formal certification process. The title means nothing. Therefore, each opinion is worth the same as any other. Therefore, the original comment stands on its own merit. I'm not changing anything, but the original comment is correct. A single "review" should never be allowed for that reason. 98.194.39.86 ( talk) 04:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Jon Favreau decided to have a viral advertisement project where he had the popular Youtuber FreddieW create his own video inspired by the film, about a week prior to the release of the video. The actual video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YsRO6G7Ks 98.231.11.167 ( talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When asked by Howard Stern if the film cost $180 million to make, Jon said that was not true and that the budget was $163 million (at 1:40), however the Howard Stern website says $153 million. [1] How do we source this? Mercury News says $180 million. [2]. The Los Angeles Times did not give a figure in its weekly Movie Projector write-up. [3]— Mike Allen 03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it a "bracelet" or a "wristband" or a "gauntlet weapon" or what? We need to be consistent.
Also, the rock formations at the "final battle" site look an awful lot like the Chiricahua National Monument, and I think the generic "Indians" were referred to as Chiricahua Apaches. Did anybody else catch that? Paulburnett ( talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Cowboys & Aliens. Favonian ( talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Cowboys & Aliens (film) → Cowboys & Aliens – Main topic. The only other links on the disambig page are the comic and some British album. Since the comic was developed for the movie, and most people have no idea there even was a comic, I think it would be fine just to call this article Cowboys & Aliens and have a hatnote to Cowboys & Aliens (disambiguation). -- Boycool ( talk) 22:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
These are two good sources to use in the "Design and effects" section: 1, 2. I would add them myself, but I kinda screwed up my left arm last night. -- Boycool ( talk) 14:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that movie was a huge box-office bomb, but not successful in the box office either. What do you think? BattleshipMan ( talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MathewTownsend ( talk · contribs) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Will start this review shortly. MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
...in the script? "The aliens ... are ... mining gold to power their machines." How does one use gold as a power source? WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has a picture of Indiana Jones' fedora why exactly? 82.26.78.212 ( talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing found at posted link. I'm sorry, but the picture comes across as a little fan-boyish. Yes, we get that Harrison Ford also played Indiana Jones in a different movie franchise and wore a different hat. Is this photo really anything more than trivia crow-barred in at the flimsiest excuse? 82.26.78.212 ( talk) 19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Still in the article and still a weird choice. Although the nearby article text does explain that the filmmakers did not want to give Ford a hat that would remind audiences of Indiana Jones, but that is not a good reason to include a picture of a hat that is not used in this film. -- 109.77.192.162 ( talk) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Cowboys & Aliens. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2011/07/27/cowboys_vs_aliens/index.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cowboys & Aliens. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)