This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I added the indieWire review by Logan Hill to the article, but there is another indieWire review by Cory Everett here. I figured one indieWire review was enough but thought I'd share the other one here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Another source. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the "Critical reception" section, I think there are different ways to word the aggregate scores. I've reverted the changes partially. We can go ahead and use "gave" if the word "report" is seen as too objective. However, I think it is important to try to explain the nature of these websites. For example, Rotten Tomatoes treats a review as positive or negative, and this confirms the dichotomy. I re-worded it to exclude "dichotomy" if that is too complicated. I also think that it should say that RT summarized the consensus; to say "the site's consensus" makes it sound like it reviewed the film itself. I also added a breakdown of reviews at Metacritic (something I've done elsewhere) because I think it helps show variance or lack thereof. (For example, you could have lots of highly positive reviews and lots of highly negative reviews and the overall score would be in the middle.) Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Erik I think we should use the other theatrical poster. I just saw the film in London and that is the poster they use. Also the Sunshine theater in New York where I also saw the film used the three faces against the mask poster. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmopedia ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The current plot summary is too long at 890 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT (and the policy identified at these guidelines), the summary should be between 400 and 700 words. I think we should try to aim at the middle of the range, at around 550 words, since too many summaries push their luck with just under 700 words. Let's strive for a concise summary like Wikipedia policy says. We just need enough to tell the general story so readers have context for the rest of the article. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I beleive the use of the term "eco-terrorism" as a link from the term "jam" in the plot section of this page is incorrect usage of the term. In the film a jam is an action, eco-terrorism is a concept or ideology. Further, to frame the jams performed by The East in the film as terrorism is not true to the morally ambiguous message present in the film. Are the actions of this cell terrorism? Are the actions of the corporations who poison people and the planet? The film asks these questions and to impose the frame of 'eco-terrorism' on the writers interpretation of a jam is untrue to the purpose of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.193.11 ( talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Corvoe's edits, I disagree with classifying the film as British. The corporate setup is that Fox Searchlight Pictures is the main studio here and is American, and the production company Scott Free Productions, headquartered in London, works for Fox Searchlight. Also, these British reviews here and here do not ID the film as British. Filming also took place in the United States, so I am more keen to call the film American than British. However, we do not need to do this for the lead section's opening sentence. Per MOS:FILM#Lead section, we can state the backgrounds of Fox Searchlight in Scott Free. However, I think we should revert the date formatting per MOS:RETAIN. As for the poster, I'm indifferent to which one we use. Thoughts? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
As I stated above, Fox Searchlight is the studio. One problem here is the limited use of the "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields. For films from the major studios and their film units, they produce and distribute the films, and to produce the films, they hire different companies. Sound of My Voice is a good example of how the studio is different from the distributor, since Fox Searchlight bought distribution rights at Sundance after that film was already produced. For this one, though, the studio and the distributor are the same, so I've revised the article accordingly. I've also updated the lead section to just say "English-language" in the opening sentence and to provide context for Fox Searchlight and Scott Free's involvement with this film. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I failed to answer, but this works for me. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reduced the plot length in line with Wiki MOS [ [1]]. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Jontel ( talk) 12:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I added the indieWire review by Logan Hill to the article, but there is another indieWire review by Cory Everett here. I figured one indieWire review was enough but thought I'd share the other one here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Another source. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the "Critical reception" section, I think there are different ways to word the aggregate scores. I've reverted the changes partially. We can go ahead and use "gave" if the word "report" is seen as too objective. However, I think it is important to try to explain the nature of these websites. For example, Rotten Tomatoes treats a review as positive or negative, and this confirms the dichotomy. I re-worded it to exclude "dichotomy" if that is too complicated. I also think that it should say that RT summarized the consensus; to say "the site's consensus" makes it sound like it reviewed the film itself. I also added a breakdown of reviews at Metacritic (something I've done elsewhere) because I think it helps show variance or lack thereof. (For example, you could have lots of highly positive reviews and lots of highly negative reviews and the overall score would be in the middle.) Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Erik I think we should use the other theatrical poster. I just saw the film in London and that is the poster they use. Also the Sunshine theater in New York where I also saw the film used the three faces against the mask poster. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmopedia ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The current plot summary is too long at 890 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT (and the policy identified at these guidelines), the summary should be between 400 and 700 words. I think we should try to aim at the middle of the range, at around 550 words, since too many summaries push their luck with just under 700 words. Let's strive for a concise summary like Wikipedia policy says. We just need enough to tell the general story so readers have context for the rest of the article. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I beleive the use of the term "eco-terrorism" as a link from the term "jam" in the plot section of this page is incorrect usage of the term. In the film a jam is an action, eco-terrorism is a concept or ideology. Further, to frame the jams performed by The East in the film as terrorism is not true to the morally ambiguous message present in the film. Are the actions of this cell terrorism? Are the actions of the corporations who poison people and the planet? The film asks these questions and to impose the frame of 'eco-terrorism' on the writers interpretation of a jam is untrue to the purpose of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.193.11 ( talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Corvoe's edits, I disagree with classifying the film as British. The corporate setup is that Fox Searchlight Pictures is the main studio here and is American, and the production company Scott Free Productions, headquartered in London, works for Fox Searchlight. Also, these British reviews here and here do not ID the film as British. Filming also took place in the United States, so I am more keen to call the film American than British. However, we do not need to do this for the lead section's opening sentence. Per MOS:FILM#Lead section, we can state the backgrounds of Fox Searchlight in Scott Free. However, I think we should revert the date formatting per MOS:RETAIN. As for the poster, I'm indifferent to which one we use. Thoughts? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
As I stated above, Fox Searchlight is the studio. One problem here is the limited use of the "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields. For films from the major studios and their film units, they produce and distribute the films, and to produce the films, they hire different companies. Sound of My Voice is a good example of how the studio is different from the distributor, since Fox Searchlight bought distribution rights at Sundance after that film was already produced. For this one, though, the studio and the distributor are the same, so I've revised the article accordingly. I've also updated the lead section to just say "English-language" in the opening sentence and to provide context for Fox Searchlight and Scott Free's involvement with this film. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I failed to answer, but this works for me. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reduced the plot length in line with Wiki MOS [ [1]]. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Jontel ( talk) 12:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)