![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is no Steve Hiller Wikipedia article, nor is he listed as an actor in the IMDb. I could not find any indications that he is an established actor. There is a Steve Hiller listed in the IMDb who is a camera operator and electrician.-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Other than the IMDb, I have not seen a screenwriting credit for Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air. Unfortunately, the IMDb is not always a reliable source for film credits. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The primary film credits are given on the official website ( http://www.theupintheairmovie.com/credits.html). -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have not seen Up in the Air. However, the reviews that I've read indicate that Ryan Bingham fires employees for companies unwilling to do it themself. There seems to be no indication that he selects the employees to be fired. The citations do not support this either. Someone who has seen the film would be in a better position to determine whether this recent edit is appropriate. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 ( talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template without providing a reason. If anyone sees a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it here. I am asking for someone from the American cinema task force to determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 12:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is very repetitive. It needs to be more succinct and concise. - tbone ( talk) 03:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Dan - You seem to be the primary author here...would you mind if someone edited down some of your well-developed areas, for readability? I'd probably start with the box office strategy and critical response sections. JGray ( talk) 07:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
It seemed repetitive to me as I read it. One example: The following, from the "Writing" section, repeats stuff we've already read by that point. "Up in the Air is a film adaptation of the 2001 novel, Up in the Air, written by Walter Kirn. Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner wrote the screenplay.[24] Reitman previously wrote Thank You for Smoking.[25] " Mad Thinker ( talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I trimmed the introduction. I believe I have addressed Jeremy Butler’s concern that it may be too long. If the introduction meets Wikipedia quality standards, please remove "intro length" from the "article issues" template.
Please comment on Mr. Butler’s other concerns and provide suggestions on how to address these, or make appropriate edits.
-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dan, since you started a new article on release strategy, I'm thinking that the new article can retain as much information as it needs and probably does not need to be pared down. Also, this article here looks much better! I think the major points of improvement of the article in discussion are covered at this point. — Andy W. ( talk/ contrb.) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is repetitive and much too long. It should be objective, concise, and contain only the plot, the cast and key creative crew. Some of these sections, Release Strategy etc. read like a marketing department's attempt to memorialize their efforts. Someone please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upinarms ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's screenplay is a very loose adaption of Walter Kirn's novel. I am considering adding a section to the article on the book ( Up in the Air) and referening it in this article. The article on Walter Kirn's novel is significantly shorter than this article and a few editors continue to confuse details between the book and the film adaption. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the phrase "quietly reflecting on how lonely and insubstantial his life really is" that Kchishol1970 added in Revision 338364647 is an interpretation of the film, rather than a specific plot point. I would appreciate other perspectives before reverting the edit. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
this two facts. Empathy for the fired and the so called change manager hasn't any profit himself inspite of gaining miles. A bizarr construction for leading a life. -- Danaide ( talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears that edit 338587962 by Katrinamsnbc does not have a neutral point of view. I would appreciate someone else reviewing the edit to make certain it meets Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards. If Katrinamsnbc is associated with MSNBC, there may also be a conflict of interest in this edit. Katrinamsnbc has only made two edits, both related to this topic. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On his final episode of the Tonight show Conan O'Brien was fired by Steve Carell who pretended lines from the film were his own. [1]
There is a minor dispute as to how many miles Ryan Bingham gave his sister and her new husband. One editor believed it was one million miles total. I vaguely remember that it was 500 thousand miles each for a total of one million miles. A recent edit changed that to 500 thousand miles total. The
script referenced by this article is no help because it mention 400 thousand miles apiece. Pending being able to view the DVD, I suggest we keep the current edit until we have definitive information in order to forstall an edit war.
Pages 117-118
RYAN
How many miles would it take to
circle the globe?
AIRPORT OPERATOR
We have our "around-the-world" tickets.
They're four hundred thousand miles each.
RYAN
Sounds perfect.
-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Does the added "External link" added in revision 340516700 by KinoLover ( talk) meet WikiProject Films standards? Also, Up in the Air is a Russian language site and may constitute link spam. I am inclined to delete this External link and would appreciate other perspectives before doing so. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I wrote about some parallels between the characters behavior in the movie and relationship, sex, and romance addiction in a book that I cited. I suppose you can call this original research, but then anything about the movie outside of a pure plot summary and facts about production, box office, etc. is "research." I am somewhat inexperienced with wikipedia, so maybe what I wrote WAS out of line, but if it is, then ANY character analysis that isn't a direct quotation from some reputable external source (and frankly an interview is not one, though I suppose you could put the same material under "interview with directors" ) out to be removed, and that would include the current first paragraph of the themes section
"Alex's and Natalie's arrival into Ryan's life challenge his philosophy of a relationship-free life throughout the course of the film (Natalie's relationship with her boyfriend and Ryan's growing attraction to Alex). Natalie begins to realize the disheartening aspects of Ryan's job while questioning the purpose of Ryan's personal miles goal, and how his lifestyle makes it impossible for him to make any real relationship."
That is all interpretation by whomever wrote it. It is not in either of the cited sources. It is just as much "new research" as what I (OriEri) wrote.
Thanks Dan. I read the wikipedia bit on original research. I did cite Anne Wilson Schaff's book "Escaping Intimacy." Is pointing out the correlations to items in that book the original research? I think they are obvious. Also, what constitutes a published source? Suppose I found an analysis written on some random person's blog. Would that be sufficient? What if it was the blog (but still a blog) of someone who works for a print publication (e.g. more widely read, but still not editorially reviewed, fact checked, etc.) I am not trying to be obstinate; I want to understand where the boundaries (or gray areas) are from the perspective of more experienced wiki-ers. Thanks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.138.134.189 (
talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This article was originally the contents of
Up in the Air (film)#Strategy. Under the advice of a number of other editors, including
Propaniac, we trimmed that section down to better fit the standards of
WikiProject Films. Merging the contents or a sub-set thereof of this article back into
Up in the Air (film) is probably not viable.
My personal preference would be to keep this article and refine it, since I developed most of contents of Up in the Air (film) as
Jason Reitman,
George Clooney,
Anna Kendrick and
Vera Farmiga were promoting the film. I do, however, admit to feelings of parenthood towards Up in the Air (film) and this article, so I do not have an unbiased point of view in this matter. This article may have already served its purpose and may have outlived its usefulness.
Regardless, I believe there is interesting or unusual, albeit not notable to many people, information in this article:
This sentence in Up in the Air (film)#Music sounds more like trivia, than something to include in the article: "By strange coincidence, the name of the real-life singer/songwriter of another song nominated for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Original Song, "The Weary Kind" from the Crazy Heart soundtrack, is Ryan Bingham, the same name as George Clooney's character." If this is not trivia, I have a citation for interview with Walter Kirn about the origin of the character's name with him commenting on the coincidence. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was I was going to close this as a procedural matter, in that two sysops had already closed it as failing to make the argument, but I will clarify my reasons for doing so. The argument that the film is the primary use of the title has not been made; it is the majority, or most notable, but not so far as to make the novel and the other use on the disambig page so secondary to provide the rationale for the move, and discussion here has indicated that there is interest in the novel that has been stimulated by the film, clarification over which article refers to which is needful. Further, using the search facility on WP gives a clear choice between the three - no one is going to land on the "wrong" article easily. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Up in the Air (film) → Up in the Air — Hi, wanted to move this page over to the "main page" for this name, as the film has become more commonly known than the book it is based on. I have already moved the article for the book to Up in the Air (book), but I can't move this article, because the destination name is already taken. Don't know how to undo the first move either for that matter. Hope someone can help. — TheFreeloader ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That play by play (including the 6:30 pm time of the showing on October 14?!?) is utterly unencyclopedic. I see nothing especially unusual about the strategy for releasing the film; the section needs substantial condensing. THF ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is no Steve Hiller Wikipedia article, nor is he listed as an actor in the IMDb. I could not find any indications that he is an established actor. There is a Steve Hiller listed in the IMDb who is a camera operator and electrician.-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Other than the IMDb, I have not seen a screenwriting credit for Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air. Unfortunately, the IMDb is not always a reliable source for film credits. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The primary film credits are given on the official website ( http://www.theupintheairmovie.com/credits.html). -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have not seen Up in the Air. However, the reviews that I've read indicate that Ryan Bingham fires employees for companies unwilling to do it themself. There seems to be no indication that he selects the employees to be fired. The citations do not support this either. Someone who has seen the film would be in a better position to determine whether this recent edit is appropriate. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 ( talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template without providing a reason. If anyone sees a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it here. I am asking for someone from the American cinema task force to determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 12:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is very repetitive. It needs to be more succinct and concise. - tbone ( talk) 03:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Dan - You seem to be the primary author here...would you mind if someone edited down some of your well-developed areas, for readability? I'd probably start with the box office strategy and critical response sections. JGray ( talk) 07:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
It seemed repetitive to me as I read it. One example: The following, from the "Writing" section, repeats stuff we've already read by that point. "Up in the Air is a film adaptation of the 2001 novel, Up in the Air, written by Walter Kirn. Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner wrote the screenplay.[24] Reitman previously wrote Thank You for Smoking.[25] " Mad Thinker ( talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I trimmed the introduction. I believe I have addressed Jeremy Butler’s concern that it may be too long. If the introduction meets Wikipedia quality standards, please remove "intro length" from the "article issues" template.
Please comment on Mr. Butler’s other concerns and provide suggestions on how to address these, or make appropriate edits.
-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dan, since you started a new article on release strategy, I'm thinking that the new article can retain as much information as it needs and probably does not need to be pared down. Also, this article here looks much better! I think the major points of improvement of the article in discussion are covered at this point. — Andy W. ( talk/ contrb.) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is repetitive and much too long. It should be objective, concise, and contain only the plot, the cast and key creative crew. Some of these sections, Release Strategy etc. read like a marketing department's attempt to memorialize their efforts. Someone please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upinarms ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's screenplay is a very loose adaption of Walter Kirn's novel. I am considering adding a section to the article on the book ( Up in the Air) and referening it in this article. The article on Walter Kirn's novel is significantly shorter than this article and a few editors continue to confuse details between the book and the film adaption. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the phrase "quietly reflecting on how lonely and insubstantial his life really is" that Kchishol1970 added in Revision 338364647 is an interpretation of the film, rather than a specific plot point. I would appreciate other perspectives before reverting the edit. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
this two facts. Empathy for the fired and the so called change manager hasn't any profit himself inspite of gaining miles. A bizarr construction for leading a life. -- Danaide ( talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears that edit 338587962 by Katrinamsnbc does not have a neutral point of view. I would appreciate someone else reviewing the edit to make certain it meets Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards. If Katrinamsnbc is associated with MSNBC, there may also be a conflict of interest in this edit. Katrinamsnbc has only made two edits, both related to this topic. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On his final episode of the Tonight show Conan O'Brien was fired by Steve Carell who pretended lines from the film were his own. [1]
There is a minor dispute as to how many miles Ryan Bingham gave his sister and her new husband. One editor believed it was one million miles total. I vaguely remember that it was 500 thousand miles each for a total of one million miles. A recent edit changed that to 500 thousand miles total. The
script referenced by this article is no help because it mention 400 thousand miles apiece. Pending being able to view the DVD, I suggest we keep the current edit until we have definitive information in order to forstall an edit war.
Pages 117-118
RYAN
How many miles would it take to
circle the globe?
AIRPORT OPERATOR
We have our "around-the-world" tickets.
They're four hundred thousand miles each.
RYAN
Sounds perfect.
-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Does the added "External link" added in revision 340516700 by KinoLover ( talk) meet WikiProject Films standards? Also, Up in the Air is a Russian language site and may constitute link spam. I am inclined to delete this External link and would appreciate other perspectives before doing so. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I wrote about some parallels between the characters behavior in the movie and relationship, sex, and romance addiction in a book that I cited. I suppose you can call this original research, but then anything about the movie outside of a pure plot summary and facts about production, box office, etc. is "research." I am somewhat inexperienced with wikipedia, so maybe what I wrote WAS out of line, but if it is, then ANY character analysis that isn't a direct quotation from some reputable external source (and frankly an interview is not one, though I suppose you could put the same material under "interview with directors" ) out to be removed, and that would include the current first paragraph of the themes section
"Alex's and Natalie's arrival into Ryan's life challenge his philosophy of a relationship-free life throughout the course of the film (Natalie's relationship with her boyfriend and Ryan's growing attraction to Alex). Natalie begins to realize the disheartening aspects of Ryan's job while questioning the purpose of Ryan's personal miles goal, and how his lifestyle makes it impossible for him to make any real relationship."
That is all interpretation by whomever wrote it. It is not in either of the cited sources. It is just as much "new research" as what I (OriEri) wrote.
Thanks Dan. I read the wikipedia bit on original research. I did cite Anne Wilson Schaff's book "Escaping Intimacy." Is pointing out the correlations to items in that book the original research? I think they are obvious. Also, what constitutes a published source? Suppose I found an analysis written on some random person's blog. Would that be sufficient? What if it was the blog (but still a blog) of someone who works for a print publication (e.g. more widely read, but still not editorially reviewed, fact checked, etc.) I am not trying to be obstinate; I want to understand where the boundaries (or gray areas) are from the perspective of more experienced wiki-ers. Thanks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.138.134.189 (
talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This article was originally the contents of
Up in the Air (film)#Strategy. Under the advice of a number of other editors, including
Propaniac, we trimmed that section down to better fit the standards of
WikiProject Films. Merging the contents or a sub-set thereof of this article back into
Up in the Air (film) is probably not viable.
My personal preference would be to keep this article and refine it, since I developed most of contents of Up in the Air (film) as
Jason Reitman,
George Clooney,
Anna Kendrick and
Vera Farmiga were promoting the film. I do, however, admit to feelings of parenthood towards Up in the Air (film) and this article, so I do not have an unbiased point of view in this matter. This article may have already served its purpose and may have outlived its usefulness.
Regardless, I believe there is interesting or unusual, albeit not notable to many people, information in this article:
This sentence in Up in the Air (film)#Music sounds more like trivia, than something to include in the article: "By strange coincidence, the name of the real-life singer/songwriter of another song nominated for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Original Song, "The Weary Kind" from the Crazy Heart soundtrack, is Ryan Bingham, the same name as George Clooney's character." If this is not trivia, I have a citation for interview with Walter Kirn about the origin of the character's name with him commenting on the coincidence. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was I was going to close this as a procedural matter, in that two sysops had already closed it as failing to make the argument, but I will clarify my reasons for doing so. The argument that the film is the primary use of the title has not been made; it is the majority, or most notable, but not so far as to make the novel and the other use on the disambig page so secondary to provide the rationale for the move, and discussion here has indicated that there is interest in the novel that has been stimulated by the film, clarification over which article refers to which is needful. Further, using the search facility on WP gives a clear choice between the three - no one is going to land on the "wrong" article easily. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Up in the Air (film) → Up in the Air — Hi, wanted to move this page over to the "main page" for this name, as the film has become more commonly known than the book it is based on. I have already moved the article for the book to Up in the Air (book), but I can't move this article, because the destination name is already taken. Don't know how to undo the first move either for that matter. Hope someone can help. — TheFreeloader ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That play by play (including the 6:30 pm time of the showing on October 14?!?) is utterly unencyclopedic. I see nothing especially unusual about the strategy for releasing the film; the section needs substantial condensing. THF ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |