Talk:Empire of the Sun (film)

Plot summary

The plot summary was marked as overlong some times ago. I've trimmed it a bit, but it's still too detailed. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Current edit-war taking place

I've been watching the English vs Welsh edit-war that's currently taking place. I thought Christian Bale was Welsh? How can he be a Welsh actor at one point in his career and then evolve into an English actor? If I was an actor (I'm English) and I moved to America, I'd still be classed as an English actor, surely? Someone please elaborate, thanks —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, I don't consider this an edit war, but he is listed as a Welsh-born English actor but at the time of his audition, he was only identified as a young "Welsh actor" which is the arcane point I think I am making since the original statement indicated "at the time" of the audition. Very minor issue indeed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC).

That's what I don't understand, how can one be a Welsh-born Englishmen when they're two separate countries. Surely they must be one or the other. I always assumed Bale to be Welsh, not English —— RyanLupin • (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but that's the moniker that appears with him in another Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC).

Willingness for GA status

Since the slight edit conflict is over between me (Wildroot) and Bzuk, I think this article can be ready to go to WP:GAN. Since Alientraveller is an extraordinary editor and has done "polishes" on my various GA articles before nomination, I will ask him for some mild consultant help. I still have one small (sort of) problem. I feel Empire of the Sun is a small article at 22,000 bytes (there's nothing wrong with that), thus we do not really need a lead that big. My original lead is found here, but Bzuk concurred. Anyway, any concerns can be addressed here before I ask of Alientraveller. Cheers. —Wildroot (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The current lede is not large, it is, in fact, almost exactly the same size as the old lede. According to Microsoft Word:

Old lede - 187 words, 973 characters, 1158 characters with spaces

Current lede - 183 words, 893 characters, 1173 characters with spaces.

So the current lede is four words shorter than the old lede. The current lede is preferable, as it's organized somewhat better, and reads more fluidly. No change of lede is necessary. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, whatever. Anything else anyone? —Wildroot (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the structure I think it's best to stick to individual film style guidelines but Ed Fitzgerald has some wacky ideas (like giving the actors who small roles their own little subsection). He also reverted my edits without providing no explanation. According to those guidelines, the Themes go before the reception as well. Maye we should get Erik (he designed the style guidelines, I think) involved before we settle this edit conflict that Ed has now become a part of. —Wildroot (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, whatever.

"Guidelines" are just what they say, guidance, not absolute dogma to be slavishly followed. My "wacky" idea is that the article should have a layout that is designed to present information to the reader in a logical way: first we present an opening section briefly describing the film (the lede) and giving the most salient facts about (the infobox), then we plunge into a more detailed description of the film. First, we give the plot, then tell who was in the film, followed by a discussion of its reception and the awards it garnered. Now that we've presented the film itself, we can discuss its contents (themes, analysis, whatever). Finally, we wrap up the article with all that bottom stuff. Given this scheme, it makes little sense to have a meta-discussion about the film (themes) before you've actually finished discussing the film itself.

As for the "cast notes", the intention of this subsection is to deal with minor or interesting cast information that doesn't easily fit into a straight-forward cast list. It doesn't have to be a formal sub-section (in fact I've only started doing that recently because some people seemed to prefer it), so I'll convert it to a non-section, it that's what's wanted.

Regarding who you get in, it makes no difference to me, I'm willing to talk to anyone about anything, and Erik is a fine editor, even though we sometimes disagree. However, please note that the "argument from authority" carries very little weight with me. Erik, like every other editor, needs to present logical, reasonable and convincing arguments, not simply point to a guideline (which I don't believe he would do in any case, knowing his work).

Finally, I apologize for undoing your edit without an edit summary - it's a bad habit that I'm trying to break myself of, with somewhat less than satisfactory results. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk.—Wildroot (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC) On a lighter note, do you think it's really important to have those two paragraphs separated in the lead? I don't think it's a big deal one way or another. It just kind of bothers me for some reason and since I worked on this article, I deserve some credibility. Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe I'm being paranoid.—Wildroot (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I think it's better separated. The material in the last graf doesn't much relate to where the second graf has gone to, so passing from one thought to the other in the same paragraph would just be awkward. It's because the second graf starts as being about production matters - which would OK to move into filming locations from - but then gets into a more analytical stance, comparing Speilberg to Ballard, and it's wierd to go from that back into production.

On the other hand, the filming location stuff doesn't really need to be there at all, as long as it's covered in the body of the article, so you could drop that and tack the last sentence (not a hit) onto the second paragraph.

Let me try that and see what you think. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that, with some adjusting, and moved the sentence about locations into production. The lede may be a little sparse now, but I can live with it if you think it's better. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this is splendid. I'll see if there's any valuable info from The China Odyssey, then ask Alientraveller to do an "article polish". Then nominate for GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Themes

"Flying symbolizes Jim's possibility and danger to escape from the prison camp." This sentence simply doesn't make any sense. I would rewrite or delete it myself, but I have only a slight familiarity with the film (hence I was looking at the page) - enough to be sure flying is indeed an important theme but not enough to address the symbolism with any confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.215.255 (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a metaphor or something. Wildroot (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a metaphor, and I don't think it's too presumptuous to draw that metaphor, but I feel that the wording of the sentence isn't clear enough. "Jim's possibility and danger to escape..."? This is simply grammatically incorrect. Wakata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.114.228 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Empire of the Sun (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Plot, this sentence ---> "Nagata visits Basie's barracks, finding soap Jim earlier stole", sounds very odd. In the Production section, "The filmmakers searched for various areas across Asia in an attempt to recreate 1941 Shanghai", I know what the sentence is trying to say, perhaps a little more explanation could do, for your everyday reader.

   Half-check. The sentence from the plot reads very odd. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Production section, it would be best if "J. G. Ballard" and "Elstree Studios" are linked once. In the Reception section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" to be italicized, since their websites.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the comments have been addressed. Wildroot (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical alterations & accuracy

This film contains many alterations (from historical facts and from the book) and fictionalizations, one being the fact that the young boy sees with A-bomb explosion from China. I have read many different articles on the films inaccuracies and would think it would be of benefit to the read to have some of these highlighted... thoughts? --Jason Gaudet (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A section on historical accuracy can indicate aspects of the production where errors were made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

I wish you good luck, just remember Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. I'll admit to screwing up sometimes. I always wanted to get around to something like this, but I was lazy. I intend to read J. G. Ballard's sometime in June. Should be fun and interesting. Wildroot (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

References

After struggling with the inconsistencies in citations and references in this article, mainly in trying to reconcile dates, a mix of style guides, use of templates and template errors, I have a sandbox project that has reworked all the cites and refs. See: Sandbox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

Good job. Always glad to have fellow editors help me out [thumbs up]. Wildroot (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lunghua??

I think that Lughua may be the facility that Jamie & Basie are taken to immediately following their capture, where they await transport to Soochow Creek outside the city. When I looked at the coordinates on Google Earth they showed a location w/in the city of Shanghai but wouldn't the air base & the camp be well out of the city limits? Tommyt (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both Jim and Basie are transferred to Soochow Creek Internment Camp shortly after Lunghua. I added that detail, but it was removed as being "unnecessary". Whoever edits this page needs to watch the movie again. Donniewan75 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you added a great deal of detail to the plot, not simply mention of Suzhou Creek. You also misspelled the name. It is now fixed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding that. I spelled the camp's name "Soochow", because that's how it's spelled in the film during an establishing shot of the camp shortly after Jim and Basie were transferred. The prisoners probably Anglicized the original "Suzhou" or it was an unintentional mistake made by the filmmakers.Donniewan75 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Some kind of parenthetical comment about the misspelling might be appropriate, if a source can be found. However the "note" I just removed is not appropriate because it offers an editor's speculation in the place of a source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this--"Soochow" is not a misspelling, but instead the prevailing romanization of the time rendered the name "Suzhou Creek" as "Soochow Creek". Because it is (1) the proper name of the camp and (2) the way the name appears in the movie, the name should be rendered "Soochow Creek" for the same reason that "Lunghua" is rendered as it is instead of "Longhua" as the modern romanization would render it. It's just like how the official english name of "Suzhou" University is the "incorrect" Soochow University. Mingjai (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Removing the note was not necessary, simply change it to the factual basis of the use of the name: "Soochow". Reversion is reserved for vandalism. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Small revenue

There may be a number of films similar to this. But in the case of Empire of the Sun, this may raise a great deal of questions to some. In other words, it's pretty hard to believe how such a state-of-the-art film only generated a small revenue, considering other movies around its time made money that are off the charts. Therefore, I figure this needs to be explained in the article. 210.4.121.23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. Some movies do not find an audience, and it is not for us to speculate as to why that is. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not a box office success"

It's probably not proper English to say "not a box office success" in the beginning of this article. I mean a film is considered successful in the box office if the gross revenue is greater than the budget. But if you're going to add "not" in the description, it would most likely mean the other way around. As for the film mentioned in this article, the revenue may not be as much as its creators had hoped for but it still exceeded the budget. Therefore, I suggest the beginning of the article to use a different definition. 111.125.93.47 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)