![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
... this synopsis is miles away from the story of the book. It raises a new major question – if you’re going to get fans of the book excited only to take away what makes the book unique, what’s the point? To make a movie In Name Only that uses the title as a hook to get people into the theater before switching your bait?
Why does the adaptation formula seem to be:
Find something people like.
Option it.
Change that thing people like."
‘World War Z’ No Longer Sounds Like ‘World War Z’, August 10, 2011
Fan Rant: Why Even Call it 'World War Z' at This Point?
And Speaking of Crushingly Disappointing Zombie Entertainment News
'World War Z' Might Not Be What We Hoped For
‘World War Z’ Movie Debate: Too Different From the Book?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.126.145 ( talk) 11:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I dont understand the point you are trying to make? If you are talking about differences from the book then eventually when the film comes out it will be given a section. MisterShiney ✉ 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about "differences" from the book. It's about the movie trailer apparently revealing that the entire movie has nothing at all to do with book, in any way, shape or form. There was literally no element of the story, or threat, in the trailer that comes from the book. RK ( talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
But how can people get that from a 2 minute trailer? Just because the trailer doesn't show bits people recognise from the book doesn't meant they arnt there. At the end of the day it's an Adaptation. Meaning that it isn't going to be a perfect copy (there rarely is a perfect book/film adaptation). This is all speculation and opinion and shouldn't be included in the article at this time. MisterShiney ✉ 09:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You can tell because the trailer clearly establishes that it takes place during the war instead of after the war. This is a extremely fundamental difference as it means it will not be dealing with rebuilding which is the only thing that set this IP apart from most other entries into this genre. How you are not able to understand this and continue to be a tool for the corporate degradation of the source material is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.118.90 ( talk) 22:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've put these into the Commons, in case anyone is interested.
-- ML5 ( talk) 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
McAulay, Robert (2011-08-26). "Brad Pitt saves zombie crush girl". Scottish Sun. Retrieved 2011-08-29.
Does anyone know if this is legit? I'm a bit skeptical considering the source.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I know it can't be considered a legit source for wikipedia, but for what it's worth, I was on set when this apparently happened. And that's all it was, 'apparently', coz it never happened. But that's tabloids for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.123.67 ( talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
What am I wrong? Do you explain that? something else.
Nationaility
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello, I have a question, what's the country is the movie? America and Britain? why says in "country": United Kingdom? production companies
and is Distributed by Paramount Pictures, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC) please I need a answer to start the a consensus... MervinVillarreal ( talk) 23:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
why the "Man of Steel" do not type in Country: United States, United Kingdom? and many more films I could say you, with British participation, but are 100% American. I think that you don't understand what determines that a film is a country in specific.. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC) thats correct! I think I love you; MervinVillarreal. 63.141.199.54 ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC) do a vote? 63.141.199.42 ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC) i think can not. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 00:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC) thanks for advise him/her, so Mr TripleThreat, if the movie had no British production, why credits are given to uk in the section of country? thanks MervinVillarreal ( talk) 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Please rephrase your question Mervin. Not to sound rude but it is incredih difficult to understand what you mean. MisterShiney ✉ 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Just keep it as United States then. All those companies could be called American so why not? You could tag the rest of Graham King's filmography as British which would be incorrect. If anything it will stop this guy above wasting everyone's time with silly discussions. TheClown90 ( talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC) This is easy, suppose there is a new movie called "Wikipedia" is directed by one Venezuelan, starring by Indian, Chinese, Koreans, and Martians :'D . Was shot in brazil. and the production company is from the U.S., and also the distributor, and the original story. of Where is the movie? you know it. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Again. I see letters and words on the screen but I have no idea what you are saying. Clown, that won't solve anything as it will as you say be incorrect and confusing to the reader. I say we have 2 choices, point out that it is a joint American/British work (as we would if it was a South African/Brazillian production) or just not bother mentioning it in the opening paragraph at all. MisterShiney ✉ 20:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I have 1 choices ,
I still think you do not understand, if the great imperialist kingdom did not help in this **** movie, so why must have credits. If the credits are actors, then almost all movies would be British / American. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree with this?
those are the only credits to the UK, if you can see IMDB says the movie is from USA, MALTA ¿wtf? on the website of BFI not found. -- pages about movies that say that World War Z is a American FILM
Studio
please you can say to me which producer and distributor you talking about? MervinVillarreal ( talk) 13:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Other user have already explained that you are wrong. Accept it and move the fuck on retard! It's not that hard! 81.152.29.37 ( talk) 02:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Whilst your sentiments are understandable. Personal Attacks on users are NOT ACCEPTABLE at all. Please refrain from doing so! Mervin, whilst the comment was not appropriate, the sentiment remains the same. You need to accept that users are telling you accross multiple pages that you are wrong and move on buddy. Best bet is to let other users deal with it and try and edit Wikipedia constructively in other ways. MisterShiney ✉ 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC) What I do? I try to do the right thing, but if the movie has no British producer, so why you have to give credits?, makes no sense. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Look. GK films is British. It is producing World War Z. Making it an American/British film. End of. You are now doing the wrong thing by arguing this further. MisterShiney ✉ 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) ¿WHAT?? u sure?
S A N T A M O N I C A where says that is a british?¿ MervinVillarreal ( talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC) As has already been explained to you....GK is in fact a British Producer. You can cite as many sources as you want saying it's offices are in California, but don't forget, that it is common practice for film production companies to have offices in Los Angeles...you know...where Hollywood is? IMDB I cannot see that source you provide. Although it may be under the subscription part of the service. Should be noted though that IMDB is not a reliable source. MisterShiney ✉ 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Look, if you find any source that says that GK Films is based in UK, or even having offices in UK, I forget all about World War Z, but if not, I will proceed to change the nationality of the film, since I have the evidence to prove that world war z film is American, and no have British producer company to determining nationality "except the director, this has no bearing on nationality", in wikipedia, we determine the nationality of the movie, for that; who company produces the movie and who distributed, you know, you need find any source that says that GK Films has offices in London even, or else I will go to change the nationality, I have my reliable sources. and I know you understand that. here are my reliable sources.
MervinVillarreal ( talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I think I will change the nationality, i don't have a concrete response. from the other person that I'm debating on this consensus. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
we are talking about the company, not the owner. yes, Graham King is a British company owner, but he IS NOT the company. Grapple, brother, WHERE I'm wrong? Where there is an error or something wrong? I am giving my reliable sources, so i present evidence, then i think that I NEED change nationality. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 05:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC) and... i think u need see it MervinVillarreal ( talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You don't NEED to do anything! You are choosing too and are now being disruptive. I have reverted your edit as it goes against the established consensus and constitutes Vandalism. If you continue to do so on this page and others, you can and will be blocked by Admins who are no doubt aware of your edits given your recent block. MisterShiney ✉ 11:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
that stupidity, First, Why you have denounced me? MisterShiney, I have to edit and revert the article 3 times in less than 24 hours, to be a edit war, then you cant denounced me, u understand? second, the nationality of Graham Kings DOES NOT MATTER! The company was founded in the United States, do not understand? so, the company is American, I present my evidence, besides nobody NOBODY gives me evidence that the company has offices in London or elsewhere in the world, so, if the company is based in the U.S. so, is American , and I have to change the nationality, or speak with a adinistrador to which it deems to this, or so this need a arbritration. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course the company is American. I present thousands and thousands of hard evidence, even on the official website says it is headquartered in Santa Monica, and headquarters means the origin of the company, or am I wrong? Want the sources again?
MervinVillarreal ( talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
PRIVATE COMPANY.. in california.... ¿in what country are california sir? MervinVillarreal ( talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC) WOW! Why does this even matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.7.247 ( talk) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahh Hello there Mervin. How goes your ban? MisterShiney ✉ 22:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm already unlocked, but who wrote: "You're right, the movie is American" Not is me, and you can research all u want, you'll never find a trace of my computer at that IP, simply because is from Venezuela is not to say it was me. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 08:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Show me the proofs! MisterShaney, I do not care if the movie is from UK, USA, China or narnia, only important thing here is that when the movie is released we will see in which country is based, and maybe I can open a new topic for discussion. xd MervinVillarreal ( talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
MistherShaney, you wrong, all the companies producers are from usa, no British production "company" in the movie, and I showed the evidence one month ago. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have more fun watching the little ignorance on wikipedia, that watching some comedy. of course, i u know what i mean. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Please be more civil Mervin. Also your statement that the "UK cannot make a Hollywood Style Film for themselves" is completely wrong. You are of course forgetting the James Bond Franchise, 28 Days Later Films, Underworld, Finding Neverland, Closer, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, United 93, The Phantom of the Opera, The Golden Compass, Sweeney Todd, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Nine, Robin Hood, X-Men: First Class, Hugo, War Horse, The Kings Speech, Pirates of the Caribbean, Oh and pretty much any film listed here. Anyway, Now we are going off topic. I am done with this conversation as are other editors. You have told us why it supposedly is an American film, we have told you why it is not. The discussion is now closed with no consensus to change. Therefore I am closing this conversation with a repeated suggestion that you no longer edit by changing the nationality of films/tv series/book/related articles. But you are of course welcome to continue editing in other ways, just stay away from nationalities. MisterShiney ✉ 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I want to continue with this topic, you can not close it until it has reached a point. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 23:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Is this a post apocalyptic or apocalyptic movie? If "the zombie outbreak...is bringing down nations" still, is should be described as apocalyptic. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this can be classed as a reliable website for Wikipedia, but I was just reading this and it says about half way down that it is the most expensive film of all time at being $400 million.
If this article can be classed as reliable, shall we find other sources saying that the film is $400 million and add it into the article?
Charlr6 (
talk)
19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well if we are going to discount an updated source, can we at least replace it with one that isnt 2 years old? Because otherwise it makes it just as bad as putting an unreliable one in. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/06/brad-pitt-world-war-z-drama -- Niemti ( talk) 21:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It is legit, but also embarassingly bad. Basically any other would be a better picture (personally I'm found of the one with a helicopter, but the one with the flags is pretty cool too). . -- Niemti ( talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the resemblance of the "Z" in the poster currently in the infobox to the "Z" in the poster for Z? Does anyone know if it's intentional? --anon. 71.183.133.71 ( talk) 01:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should try and squeeze in a mention of the Muse gig Pitt arranged at the Horse Guards Parade, which coincided with the premiere in Leicester Square. Granted, the event was a publicity gig to increase Muse's US exposure, but this event and the premiere itself are certainly linked. I'll see if I can pull up some reliable references at some point today. -- Jasca Ducato ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Good enough for me. I just thought it was a concert that conveniently followed the première. -- MisterShiney ✉ 09:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Pointless Tags
|
---|
Please stop adding pointless tags to the article. It makes the article look messy - especially when the content isn't even available yet because the film hasn't been released yet. MisterShiney ✉ 07:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, then add them yourself. And then you can remove the tags. This is a static article, before I came here pretty recently it was still some incredibly outdated crap about it being a post-apocaliptic film set years after the war (like in the book and the original plot), the cast list was just ridicalous (not even mentioning most of the main roles as listed in the official website), etc. Pretty much only I worked on it in the last few weeks, despite it being practically released. -- Niemti ( talk) 10:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we stop being hostile to each other? As the article currently stands, I think we are okay without tags. The "Reception" section has a good sampling going. As for "Cast", I think we have the main cast covered. If there are other names to mention, it is probably in that gray discriminate-indiscriminate territory. (For which we could group names in prose.) Lastly, I am not sure if tagging the "Plot" section expedites matters. It will be inevitable that someone will write up a fuller summary for a blockbuster film. In contrast, such a tag may be more appropriate for a film that has been out for years but has nothing in the way of a plot summary.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Where did you get Israel from the trailer? Its not there. None of that is mentioned/detailed in the trailers.
Wikipedia isn't a race. Two IP editors is not "most users". At the end of the day, yes it needs to be done, but the plot section will be written when the film is released generally so that many editors can contribute and collaborate on it so that it is a best representation of the film and not a rag tag of information from different sources. --
MisterShiney
✉
17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Niemti, Stop being a dick - and don't call me "dude". That's not a proper plot summary, and if you think it is then you've got lot to learn about editing film articles. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Seeing as the editor expects others to do the work for them. A user has "requested" that the following sections be expanded.
-- MisterShiney ✉ 17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"My work"? When is my Wikipedia paycheck coming? -- Niemti ( talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The page lists "Segen" as the name of a woman serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Unfortunately, "Segen" isn't a name, it's a rank equivalent to "Lieutenant" in English. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Appeasing the huge foreign market of China meant removing references to the plague being discovered there and the government’s lying about it."
"the film holds a 68% approval rating" is not how RT works. RT takes a review of words and dumbs it down to a polar "Fresh" or "Rotten", regardless of the fact that most reviews are a mix of both. RT does not give an "approval rating" to any film, and describing it as such is utterly misleading. Triiple, the version you revered (that RT "had sampled 108 reviews and judged 68% of them to be positive") is correct and is not misleading, and is way more correct than the version that is currently in place. Open to others to call it one way or the other, but the current wording is just plain wrong. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
But of course, I'm always right. -- Niemti ( talk) 18:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
So add it yourself! I am fed up of editors coming in and critisizing articles saying this article needs this, this article needs that who don't actually do it themselves! So get of your butt and be bold and do it! Rather than adding tags - that doesn't actually say what needs to be added as only the person who added the tags knows what is missing! As for the plot section, plot sections aren't added before general release as the addition of a plot by an exclusive few is unreliable - as well as production companies swearing reviewers to secrecy, so when it is added, then everyone who has seen the film can be involved in writing a detailed (within guidelines) accurate summary. Otherwise we end up with a dozen different versions that are red herrings or a load of rubbish. There ahs also been at least a dozen new editors to the article in the last 24 hours alone. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I'll simply add the proper improvement tags telling people the sections are
And this time you won't remove them for some whimsical reasons. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, as for "that doesn't actually say what needs to be added as only the person who added the tags knows what is missing!" you're wrong and this is why: - and this is actually always recommended to do while tagging. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a slightly irrelevant note to say that I saw the film yesterday and was intending to do a copyedit/rewrite of the "plot" section, but that would involve forcing myself to remember the film, and not even being an editor of Wikipedia could bring me to re-live the experience. Good luck whoever wants to try it, though ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like I'm honking my own horn, I'd like to say that my edit of the plot section is far superior in terms of both readability and overall completeness of the summary, but someone keeps reverting it to a confusing version that is difficult to follow. What gives?! Is it due to a length issue? ( 192.75.71.135 ( talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC))
I think the alternate (original) ending, the one before the re-shoots took place, should be added. Here it is: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/27555/original-world-war-z-ending-in-detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 ( talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here are two more reliable links that describe the original ending, plus some quotes from Lindelof: - http://collider.com/world-war-z-sequel-original-ending/ - http://screenrant.com/damon-lindelof-world-war-z-movie-ending-rewrite/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 ( talk) 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth adding a section regarding the controversy {in some circles} as to the book's and apparently movie's pretty transparent and revisionist/idealized presentation of Israel and Zionism? There are a lot of discussions about it online and in the alternative media, e.g. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/hollywoods-zionist-embrace.html I know from having followed links into topics regarding Israel/Jews from pages on early Egypt that nothing is more contentious on here than these topics. I don't think that need be the case, however, rather than add the link to the above at the bottom of the page {would *that* be okay, or okay if paired with another link to 'balance'?} I thought I'd note this controversy, and ask if primary editors think it warrants a mention, just pov neutral, some people say X, some people say Y. Leaving it out imho makes the article less complete - I read the book, and yes its a work of fiction, but the degree to which the Israeli government and people are idealized and made victims of their own purported, fictional nobility, is, in the Edward Bernays sense of the term - pure propaganda. All this said, I appreciate it may beyond the scope of a wiki entry on a movie. Still, the conversation is happening out there, and seems worth a mention, however brief and vanilla. 50.136.54.23 ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)j.e.k.
Maybe the section was unneeded, but I think it's better if we put the main cast in the main titles order. For example, Matthew Fox and Fabrizio Zacharee Guidoas are just extras and they are not credited in the opening sequence. Peter Capaldi, Pierfrancesco Favino and David Andrews are instead more significant characters and their names appear in the credits. Check it!-- Alienautic ( talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we can add also Fox and Zacharee Guido (considering also the poster and the website) to this list and the main cast will be complete.-- Alienautic ( talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I see in the article several mentions of "WHO". Since the Brad Pitt character is given as a UN employee, does that mean "WHO" stands for the World Health Organization? Even if it doesn't, the first time the term occurs, the writer should really define it, a la: ". . .World Health Organization (WHO). . ." Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I'm reporting this properly. I was just looking up "World War Z" and noticed that the plot section about the film is rife with nonsensical, often lewd, and most likely inaccurate "facts" about what happens in the movie. I can't be sure, and I'm not familiar with the film either (which is why I was looking it up), so I figured I'd try to help out by bringing this to the attention of those of you who have been writing and maintaining the page -- it looks like someone has "hacked" it and messed up the plot synopsis. 37.142.55.97 ( talk) 19:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Brad Pitt and not Eric Cartman was the star of the real movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.127.194 ( talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
... this synopsis is miles away from the story of the book. It raises a new major question – if you’re going to get fans of the book excited only to take away what makes the book unique, what’s the point? To make a movie In Name Only that uses the title as a hook to get people into the theater before switching your bait?
Why does the adaptation formula seem to be:
Find something people like.
Option it.
Change that thing people like."
‘World War Z’ No Longer Sounds Like ‘World War Z’, August 10, 2011
Fan Rant: Why Even Call it 'World War Z' at This Point?
And Speaking of Crushingly Disappointing Zombie Entertainment News
'World War Z' Might Not Be What We Hoped For
‘World War Z’ Movie Debate: Too Different From the Book?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.126.145 ( talk) 11:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I dont understand the point you are trying to make? If you are talking about differences from the book then eventually when the film comes out it will be given a section. MisterShiney ✉ 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about "differences" from the book. It's about the movie trailer apparently revealing that the entire movie has nothing at all to do with book, in any way, shape or form. There was literally no element of the story, or threat, in the trailer that comes from the book. RK ( talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
But how can people get that from a 2 minute trailer? Just because the trailer doesn't show bits people recognise from the book doesn't meant they arnt there. At the end of the day it's an Adaptation. Meaning that it isn't going to be a perfect copy (there rarely is a perfect book/film adaptation). This is all speculation and opinion and shouldn't be included in the article at this time. MisterShiney ✉ 09:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You can tell because the trailer clearly establishes that it takes place during the war instead of after the war. This is a extremely fundamental difference as it means it will not be dealing with rebuilding which is the only thing that set this IP apart from most other entries into this genre. How you are not able to understand this and continue to be a tool for the corporate degradation of the source material is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.118.90 ( talk) 22:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've put these into the Commons, in case anyone is interested.
-- ML5 ( talk) 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
McAulay, Robert (2011-08-26). "Brad Pitt saves zombie crush girl". Scottish Sun. Retrieved 2011-08-29.
Does anyone know if this is legit? I'm a bit skeptical considering the source.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I know it can't be considered a legit source for wikipedia, but for what it's worth, I was on set when this apparently happened. And that's all it was, 'apparently', coz it never happened. But that's tabloids for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.123.67 ( talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
What am I wrong? Do you explain that? something else.
Nationaility
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello, I have a question, what's the country is the movie? America and Britain? why says in "country": United Kingdom? production companies
and is Distributed by Paramount Pictures, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC) please I need a answer to start the a consensus... MervinVillarreal ( talk) 23:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
why the "Man of Steel" do not type in Country: United States, United Kingdom? and many more films I could say you, with British participation, but are 100% American. I think that you don't understand what determines that a film is a country in specific.. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC) thats correct! I think I love you; MervinVillarreal. 63.141.199.54 ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC) do a vote? 63.141.199.42 ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC) i think can not. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 00:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC) thanks for advise him/her, so Mr TripleThreat, if the movie had no British production, why credits are given to uk in the section of country? thanks MervinVillarreal ( talk) 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Please rephrase your question Mervin. Not to sound rude but it is incredih difficult to understand what you mean. MisterShiney ✉ 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Just keep it as United States then. All those companies could be called American so why not? You could tag the rest of Graham King's filmography as British which would be incorrect. If anything it will stop this guy above wasting everyone's time with silly discussions. TheClown90 ( talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC) This is easy, suppose there is a new movie called "Wikipedia" is directed by one Venezuelan, starring by Indian, Chinese, Koreans, and Martians :'D . Was shot in brazil. and the production company is from the U.S., and also the distributor, and the original story. of Where is the movie? you know it. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Again. I see letters and words on the screen but I have no idea what you are saying. Clown, that won't solve anything as it will as you say be incorrect and confusing to the reader. I say we have 2 choices, point out that it is a joint American/British work (as we would if it was a South African/Brazillian production) or just not bother mentioning it in the opening paragraph at all. MisterShiney ✉ 20:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I have 1 choices ,
I still think you do not understand, if the great imperialist kingdom did not help in this **** movie, so why must have credits. If the credits are actors, then almost all movies would be British / American. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree with this?
those are the only credits to the UK, if you can see IMDB says the movie is from USA, MALTA ¿wtf? on the website of BFI not found. -- pages about movies that say that World War Z is a American FILM
Studio
please you can say to me which producer and distributor you talking about? MervinVillarreal ( talk) 13:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Other user have already explained that you are wrong. Accept it and move the fuck on retard! It's not that hard! 81.152.29.37 ( talk) 02:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Whilst your sentiments are understandable. Personal Attacks on users are NOT ACCEPTABLE at all. Please refrain from doing so! Mervin, whilst the comment was not appropriate, the sentiment remains the same. You need to accept that users are telling you accross multiple pages that you are wrong and move on buddy. Best bet is to let other users deal with it and try and edit Wikipedia constructively in other ways. MisterShiney ✉ 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC) What I do? I try to do the right thing, but if the movie has no British producer, so why you have to give credits?, makes no sense. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Look. GK films is British. It is producing World War Z. Making it an American/British film. End of. You are now doing the wrong thing by arguing this further. MisterShiney ✉ 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) ¿WHAT?? u sure?
S A N T A M O N I C A where says that is a british?¿ MervinVillarreal ( talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC) As has already been explained to you....GK is in fact a British Producer. You can cite as many sources as you want saying it's offices are in California, but don't forget, that it is common practice for film production companies to have offices in Los Angeles...you know...where Hollywood is? IMDB I cannot see that source you provide. Although it may be under the subscription part of the service. Should be noted though that IMDB is not a reliable source. MisterShiney ✉ 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Look, if you find any source that says that GK Films is based in UK, or even having offices in UK, I forget all about World War Z, but if not, I will proceed to change the nationality of the film, since I have the evidence to prove that world war z film is American, and no have British producer company to determining nationality "except the director, this has no bearing on nationality", in wikipedia, we determine the nationality of the movie, for that; who company produces the movie and who distributed, you know, you need find any source that says that GK Films has offices in London even, or else I will go to change the nationality, I have my reliable sources. and I know you understand that. here are my reliable sources.
MervinVillarreal ( talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I think I will change the nationality, i don't have a concrete response. from the other person that I'm debating on this consensus. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
we are talking about the company, not the owner. yes, Graham King is a British company owner, but he IS NOT the company. Grapple, brother, WHERE I'm wrong? Where there is an error or something wrong? I am giving my reliable sources, so i present evidence, then i think that I NEED change nationality. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 05:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC) and... i think u need see it MervinVillarreal ( talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You don't NEED to do anything! You are choosing too and are now being disruptive. I have reverted your edit as it goes against the established consensus and constitutes Vandalism. If you continue to do so on this page and others, you can and will be blocked by Admins who are no doubt aware of your edits given your recent block. MisterShiney ✉ 11:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
that stupidity, First, Why you have denounced me? MisterShiney, I have to edit and revert the article 3 times in less than 24 hours, to be a edit war, then you cant denounced me, u understand? second, the nationality of Graham Kings DOES NOT MATTER! The company was founded in the United States, do not understand? so, the company is American, I present my evidence, besides nobody NOBODY gives me evidence that the company has offices in London or elsewhere in the world, so, if the company is based in the U.S. so, is American , and I have to change the nationality, or speak with a adinistrador to which it deems to this, or so this need a arbritration. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course the company is American. I present thousands and thousands of hard evidence, even on the official website says it is headquartered in Santa Monica, and headquarters means the origin of the company, or am I wrong? Want the sources again?
MervinVillarreal ( talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
PRIVATE COMPANY.. in california.... ¿in what country are california sir? MervinVillarreal ( talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC) WOW! Why does this even matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.7.247 ( talk) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahh Hello there Mervin. How goes your ban? MisterShiney ✉ 22:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm already unlocked, but who wrote: "You're right, the movie is American" Not is me, and you can research all u want, you'll never find a trace of my computer at that IP, simply because is from Venezuela is not to say it was me. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 08:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Show me the proofs! MisterShaney, I do not care if the movie is from UK, USA, China or narnia, only important thing here is that when the movie is released we will see in which country is based, and maybe I can open a new topic for discussion. xd MervinVillarreal ( talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
MistherShaney, you wrong, all the companies producers are from usa, no British production "company" in the movie, and I showed the evidence one month ago. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have more fun watching the little ignorance on wikipedia, that watching some comedy. of course, i u know what i mean. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Please be more civil Mervin. Also your statement that the "UK cannot make a Hollywood Style Film for themselves" is completely wrong. You are of course forgetting the James Bond Franchise, 28 Days Later Films, Underworld, Finding Neverland, Closer, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, United 93, The Phantom of the Opera, The Golden Compass, Sweeney Todd, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Nine, Robin Hood, X-Men: First Class, Hugo, War Horse, The Kings Speech, Pirates of the Caribbean, Oh and pretty much any film listed here. Anyway, Now we are going off topic. I am done with this conversation as are other editors. You have told us why it supposedly is an American film, we have told you why it is not. The discussion is now closed with no consensus to change. Therefore I am closing this conversation with a repeated suggestion that you no longer edit by changing the nationality of films/tv series/book/related articles. But you are of course welcome to continue editing in other ways, just stay away from nationalities. MisterShiney ✉ 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I want to continue with this topic, you can not close it until it has reached a point. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 23:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Is this a post apocalyptic or apocalyptic movie? If "the zombie outbreak...is bringing down nations" still, is should be described as apocalyptic. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this can be classed as a reliable website for Wikipedia, but I was just reading this and it says about half way down that it is the most expensive film of all time at being $400 million.
If this article can be classed as reliable, shall we find other sources saying that the film is $400 million and add it into the article?
Charlr6 (
talk)
19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well if we are going to discount an updated source, can we at least replace it with one that isnt 2 years old? Because otherwise it makes it just as bad as putting an unreliable one in. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/06/brad-pitt-world-war-z-drama -- Niemti ( talk) 21:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It is legit, but also embarassingly bad. Basically any other would be a better picture (personally I'm found of the one with a helicopter, but the one with the flags is pretty cool too). . -- Niemti ( talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the resemblance of the "Z" in the poster currently in the infobox to the "Z" in the poster for Z? Does anyone know if it's intentional? --anon. 71.183.133.71 ( talk) 01:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should try and squeeze in a mention of the Muse gig Pitt arranged at the Horse Guards Parade, which coincided with the premiere in Leicester Square. Granted, the event was a publicity gig to increase Muse's US exposure, but this event and the premiere itself are certainly linked. I'll see if I can pull up some reliable references at some point today. -- Jasca Ducato ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Good enough for me. I just thought it was a concert that conveniently followed the première. -- MisterShiney ✉ 09:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Pointless Tags
|
---|
Please stop adding pointless tags to the article. It makes the article look messy - especially when the content isn't even available yet because the film hasn't been released yet. MisterShiney ✉ 07:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, then add them yourself. And then you can remove the tags. This is a static article, before I came here pretty recently it was still some incredibly outdated crap about it being a post-apocaliptic film set years after the war (like in the book and the original plot), the cast list was just ridicalous (not even mentioning most of the main roles as listed in the official website), etc. Pretty much only I worked on it in the last few weeks, despite it being practically released. -- Niemti ( talk) 10:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we stop being hostile to each other? As the article currently stands, I think we are okay without tags. The "Reception" section has a good sampling going. As for "Cast", I think we have the main cast covered. If there are other names to mention, it is probably in that gray discriminate-indiscriminate territory. (For which we could group names in prose.) Lastly, I am not sure if tagging the "Plot" section expedites matters. It will be inevitable that someone will write up a fuller summary for a blockbuster film. In contrast, such a tag may be more appropriate for a film that has been out for years but has nothing in the way of a plot summary.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Where did you get Israel from the trailer? Its not there. None of that is mentioned/detailed in the trailers.
Wikipedia isn't a race. Two IP editors is not "most users". At the end of the day, yes it needs to be done, but the plot section will be written when the film is released generally so that many editors can contribute and collaborate on it so that it is a best representation of the film and not a rag tag of information from different sources. --
MisterShiney
✉
17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Niemti, Stop being a dick - and don't call me "dude". That's not a proper plot summary, and if you think it is then you've got lot to learn about editing film articles. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Seeing as the editor expects others to do the work for them. A user has "requested" that the following sections be expanded.
-- MisterShiney ✉ 17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"My work"? When is my Wikipedia paycheck coming? -- Niemti ( talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The page lists "Segen" as the name of a woman serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Unfortunately, "Segen" isn't a name, it's a rank equivalent to "Lieutenant" in English. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Appeasing the huge foreign market of China meant removing references to the plague being discovered there and the government’s lying about it."
"the film holds a 68% approval rating" is not how RT works. RT takes a review of words and dumbs it down to a polar "Fresh" or "Rotten", regardless of the fact that most reviews are a mix of both. RT does not give an "approval rating" to any film, and describing it as such is utterly misleading. Triiple, the version you revered (that RT "had sampled 108 reviews and judged 68% of them to be positive") is correct and is not misleading, and is way more correct than the version that is currently in place. Open to others to call it one way or the other, but the current wording is just plain wrong. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
But of course, I'm always right. -- Niemti ( talk) 18:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
So add it yourself! I am fed up of editors coming in and critisizing articles saying this article needs this, this article needs that who don't actually do it themselves! So get of your butt and be bold and do it! Rather than adding tags - that doesn't actually say what needs to be added as only the person who added the tags knows what is missing! As for the plot section, plot sections aren't added before general release as the addition of a plot by an exclusive few is unreliable - as well as production companies swearing reviewers to secrecy, so when it is added, then everyone who has seen the film can be involved in writing a detailed (within guidelines) accurate summary. Otherwise we end up with a dozen different versions that are red herrings or a load of rubbish. There ahs also been at least a dozen new editors to the article in the last 24 hours alone. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I'll simply add the proper improvement tags telling people the sections are
And this time you won't remove them for some whimsical reasons. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, as for "that doesn't actually say what needs to be added as only the person who added the tags knows what is missing!" you're wrong and this is why: - and this is actually always recommended to do while tagging. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a slightly irrelevant note to say that I saw the film yesterday and was intending to do a copyedit/rewrite of the "plot" section, but that would involve forcing myself to remember the film, and not even being an editor of Wikipedia could bring me to re-live the experience. Good luck whoever wants to try it, though ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like I'm honking my own horn, I'd like to say that my edit of the plot section is far superior in terms of both readability and overall completeness of the summary, but someone keeps reverting it to a confusing version that is difficult to follow. What gives?! Is it due to a length issue? ( 192.75.71.135 ( talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC))
I think the alternate (original) ending, the one before the re-shoots took place, should be added. Here it is: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/27555/original-world-war-z-ending-in-detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 ( talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here are two more reliable links that describe the original ending, plus some quotes from Lindelof: - http://collider.com/world-war-z-sequel-original-ending/ - http://screenrant.com/damon-lindelof-world-war-z-movie-ending-rewrite/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 ( talk) 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth adding a section regarding the controversy {in some circles} as to the book's and apparently movie's pretty transparent and revisionist/idealized presentation of Israel and Zionism? There are a lot of discussions about it online and in the alternative media, e.g. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/hollywoods-zionist-embrace.html I know from having followed links into topics regarding Israel/Jews from pages on early Egypt that nothing is more contentious on here than these topics. I don't think that need be the case, however, rather than add the link to the above at the bottom of the page {would *that* be okay, or okay if paired with another link to 'balance'?} I thought I'd note this controversy, and ask if primary editors think it warrants a mention, just pov neutral, some people say X, some people say Y. Leaving it out imho makes the article less complete - I read the book, and yes its a work of fiction, but the degree to which the Israeli government and people are idealized and made victims of their own purported, fictional nobility, is, in the Edward Bernays sense of the term - pure propaganda. All this said, I appreciate it may beyond the scope of a wiki entry on a movie. Still, the conversation is happening out there, and seems worth a mention, however brief and vanilla. 50.136.54.23 ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)j.e.k.
Maybe the section was unneeded, but I think it's better if we put the main cast in the main titles order. For example, Matthew Fox and Fabrizio Zacharee Guidoas are just extras and they are not credited in the opening sequence. Peter Capaldi, Pierfrancesco Favino and David Andrews are instead more significant characters and their names appear in the credits. Check it!-- Alienautic ( talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we can add also Fox and Zacharee Guido (considering also the poster and the website) to this list and the main cast will be complete.-- Alienautic ( talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I see in the article several mentions of "WHO". Since the Brad Pitt character is given as a UN employee, does that mean "WHO" stands for the World Health Organization? Even if it doesn't, the first time the term occurs, the writer should really define it, a la: ". . .World Health Organization (WHO). . ." Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I'm reporting this properly. I was just looking up "World War Z" and noticed that the plot section about the film is rife with nonsensical, often lewd, and most likely inaccurate "facts" about what happens in the movie. I can't be sure, and I'm not familiar with the film either (which is why I was looking it up), so I figured I'd try to help out by bringing this to the attention of those of you who have been writing and maintaining the page -- it looks like someone has "hacked" it and messed up the plot synopsis. 37.142.55.97 ( talk) 19:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Brad Pitt and not Eric Cartman was the star of the real movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.127.194 ( talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)