Jump to content

Talk:W. (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mechroneal (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 11 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jack Daniels

I don't see anything in the source stating that it is actual JD placement. It seems the statement was made more offhand, not in reference to an actual product placement agreement being in place. Removing this (but not the actual mention of JD). Mechroneal (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

$830 million? What? No way. Source is login-protected for full article. No way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.68.130 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should be created when filming is verified to have begun. Filming for this one is scheduled for the end of April, which is still some time away. Oliver's previous attempt, Pinkville, was canceled three weeks before filming, so this threshold exists for a reason. While I personally don't think that there would be interference with this one, it still cannot be guaranteed beyond our personal beliefs. I've revised the article to look a little nicer, so if we can merge this elsewhere, we can easily revive the article if filming begins. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting date is so near, I would keep it unless delayed. Alientraveller (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Steam really seems to be building on this one with all the casting news appearing in the press.--J.D. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we can practice WP:IAR here, but like Alientraveller suggested, if there's a delay, merge it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to seal the deal -- IMDb indicates that filming has begun, and I doubt there's a strong reason to dispute this status. This film article is definitely going to garner some attention upon release... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation dump

I implemented what I could, because for now there's no telling how many historical accuracies/inaccuracies will be in the film. Alientraveller (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm absolutely positive that we can get the lay of the land in terms of historical accuracy when the film comes out. This is more like placeholder information, educating readers in the meantime. I have to admit that I don't know what to think of this film being based on someone so current. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this is the place to comment on this but I believe it is fantabolous that Stone is making this picture now. Remember Fahrenheit 911 and World Trade Center, both using the medium to tell current stories and persuade the public (and don't forget SNL). Stone is a god. Master Redyva ♠ 15:29, April 12, 2008 (UTC)
Well, the talk page guidelines say that we need to stay on topic (meaning the improvement of the article, not opinion of the film), so it's probably best not to go on with this general discussion. It's probably better to talk about our opinions of the film on each others' user talk pages. This talk page shouldn't change into a forum. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, avoid stone as a god comments. The movie is taking a lot of liberties even if it is based on a true story. Remember JFK? Sure, the man portrayed in the movie genuinely believed in a 'magic bullet' but anyone who knows about the car and the window knows the bullet was a straight shot. My point being, that millions of people now believe in the 'magic bullet' or a 'second shooter' because of the film, and not because of history itself. (The car had jump seats, which modern cars dont have, and Connally was lined up perfectly) SO take this movie with a grain of salt. The Doors movie was about Jim, not the Doors, and the Doors themselves and Patricia K Morrison all have issues with the movie. Expect W to be far from the truth as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we cannot truly say based on a true story because it is loosely based on a true story. If one has seen the trailers Oliver Stone took his liberties to take the real life situations and make follies out of them. In addition, some of the things shown by the trailers never happened (I am sure there are articles on this). I think maybe we should say "loosely" and it will not affect the idea itself based on a true story.--72.202.148.237 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year

Since the article cites that the film will be released in 2008, someone should probably change the title of this article to reflect that. --Zarathustra327 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes 'teaser' art

Would it be OK to incorporate the official Cannes 'teaser' art (as seen at IONCinema.com) into the infobox? — Hugh 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use

Accuracy Section

Being mostly just a reader on Wikipedia, I'm surprised to see such a poorly written section. All of it is true, but this is a politically-neutral wiki. 75.68.103.16 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? If you wanna complain about something, fix it yourself. Actually, get a log in name, it's not that hard. Wildroot (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bite the IPs... he/she is referring to an opinion section that was removed shortly after the comment was posted. --Ckatzchatspy 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wiki article an ad for the movie? Reads like a slightly disguised ad. It is good to see that they disclosed some of the financing (i.e. China for instance). To be fair, I have not yet seen the movie, but this article leans more towards seeing the film as substantive - i.e. implying that "W" is substantially based on actual history. Other viewers familiar with history will have to agree/disagree here, hopefully using solid references to make their points. But right now, it's about 80% an "infomercial" for the movie.71.155.241.119 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)71.155.241.119 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pressly

Should there be a mention of Anne Pressly, the actress and news anchor who had a small part in the film, who was attacked and murdered recently? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In a dream the President is a baseball player again and hears a ball hit to the outfield but Bush cannot find the ball."

This was written by a five year old.--Occono (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate this plot summary for the worst ever written, in the history of everything. Wow. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible. I tried to clean it up a bit but...wow.139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that W. himself wrote the plot summary.

Accuracy of 'China' in map in war room scene

The scene I'm referring to is when GW Bush & his cabinet are discussing how to justify a war in Iraq among the war cabinet. The (presentation) map shown there shows Tibet as not being part of China (as it is not colored in yellow). Why would a Republican think this way? Only a Pelosian Democrat would. Jsw663 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:W._(film)&oldid=270021961"