Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

Infobox Tag

Infobox tag has been removed as article already has one. If you have any problems with this please post a message on my talk page. RWardy 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Plot needs radical trimming

I'd like to suggest that a blow-by-blow description of the story is really not appropriate for a movie of this type (i.e. a made-for-TV movie without much of an afterlife). I don't know the film, so I can't do the editing myself (and I despise tagging, so I'm not going to slap a "Plot too long" tag on it), but someone who knows the film might want to take a wack at cutting the plot section down by half, at least. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and tagged as such. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. 3,000 words to describe the plot of a TV movie is obscene. A brief summary of the plot, perhaps 500 words, would be welcome. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the plot is not an appropriate fix and your removal has been reverted. The need is to edit the plot down, not ax it all together. The guideline is 400-900 words for a 2 hour movie with a relatively simple plot. As Aftershock is a little over three hours long, and has a complex plot following multiple groups of people, 800-1800 words would be within the guidelines, and 2000 would not be unreasonable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that removal is inappropriate is incorrect; See Wikipedia:Be bold. It is certainly arguable that doing so is more likely to encourage editors to produce an appropriate plot summary than exhorting them to try to produce something useful out of the current monstrously large slab of text. In my opinion 800 words would be acceptable, 2,000 words would be utterly ridiculous. I'm starting a RfC. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

An RfC seems rather extreme this early, but your choice. There is no disagreement over the plot needing to be cut down, only your method of removing it all together instead of doing the actual work to edit it. As for the word count, it comes from the Film MOS and project consensus. If you wish to argue that, please do so in the film project. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

An RfC is just another way of getting more views--it's a good way of avoiding a stalement. I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and I agree with it, but I think it's very much in line with what I'm suggesting. In fact it says: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." I have said that 2,000 words would be obscenely long. If we can trim the current 3,000 words down to something like 800, preferably less, I'll be very happy, but I suggest that a rethink about the structure of the summary would work better than simply trying to hack out words. In short, it should be rewritten. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

400-700 words, and 900 words max is for a standard length movie. This movie is extra long. 800 would not be sufficient for a movie that spans over 3 hours and follows multiple story lines at once. I've asked the film project to participate in this RfC. Until, please stop changing the plot section and making it worthless. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a bold experiment, which should be reverted if desired, I've trimmed the plot summary to a bare summary [1]. This lists the main characters and incorporates the schedule of structural damage caused to the city. I suggest that it might be a lot easier to expand on that summary than to trim bits out of the 3,000-word original. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone it. That was a purely useless plot summary that wouldn't tell anyone anything about the movie at all. Have you ever seen it? The focus is not on the "schedule of structural damage" but on the relationships of the main characters and how they are affected by the disaster. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we're getting somewhere. I've made an attempt to produce a minimal summary the plot and you've opined that it's "purely useless". Obviously you think we need to put in more about the characters. Here's a proposed addition:

Through the failing relationship of Dori and Sam, parental concerns about the vulnerability of children are explored. Danny has been injured in an accident two years previously, and at first Sam writes off Dori's concerns about earthquakes as imaginary, since they had moved from the quake-prone Los Angeles area to New York.

Diane loses her father in the quake, and is comforted and helped by Nikolai, and they become close. In the epilog, they are still together and Diane is a star ballerina.

Evie and Joshua are among people trapped in the Subway when the quake hits. Joshua takes charge, and in a subplot it is revealed that Joshua committed the murder of his wife, a crime of which Evie had had him cleared. He tries to kill Evie and the others, but dies in a fortuitous accident as he tries to escape.

Ahearn, at first seen on the point of resignation because of his differences with the mayor, takes charge of the emergency, and in the epilog he is shown still in his post one year later.

We can add more, and the above does need polishng. My point is that there are ways of writing about this film than a huge blow-by-blow account, and such an innovative telescoping structure is unlikely to result by chipping away at the current version. And please stop telling me to stop being bold. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems to cross the the OR line, and is not accurate. The third paragraph is also inaccurate, as is the last. I agree a huge blow-by-blow is not good, however just ripping out the entire thing is not the right answer either. It needs compacting, not massacre. I didn't tell, I asked because I get tired of having to revert. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on the question of compacting it--the huge slab of text we have now was added here in two edits by User:4.235.36.194 eighteen months ago, and was little touched for months until in September you rewrote half the plot section while retaining the long format. There has been little change since then. Now I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that an article that has suffered from a grossly inappropriate edit for eighteen months without anything being done to remove the most obvious problem is likely to remain so as long as the inappropriate content remains on the article and we try to chip away at it.

On reverting, you should always feel free to revert a bold edit, but I promise I won't try your patience. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Back on the subject of the rewrite, would you like to have a go at correcting the inaccuracies in my proposed draft? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still do not like the proposed draft. It is too short. We are supposed to cover all of the major plot points, not just quick bullet points.

I think we can both agree that we both feel the plot is to long, right? (I think I'm the one who tagged it for plot in the first place?). I did do the rewrite, because of inaccuracies. When I did it, I wrote as I watched, which always results in excessive length, but, to me, it ensures an accurate starting place for then cutting things down and compacting. Several places something is said in three sentences that probably only needs one. Our difference of opinion seems to be on how to cut it down and to what extent. You seem to favor just scrapping and redoing, while I would prefer to first copyedit the existing to cut out the excess words/phrases and see what's left. I think with good copyediting, the plot could be brought down to an acceptable length, without just getting rid of all of it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put a copy of the plot rewrite at:

Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York/Plot rewrite

We'll make much quicker progress if you will simply Be bold and edit it instead of discussing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, you asked for an RfC...wouldn't it be good to actually get some other comments? I will work on a shorter version, starting with the current one which is accurate, in my sandbox while waiting for the actual other comments asked for. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be a bad idea to stop editing simply because we want opinions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is AnmaFinotera attempting to do a rewrite, or is it just Anticipation? I could give it a go, if that would help. I am fuzzy about some details, since it has been a while since SciFi hasn't aired it recently. I will put notes on Anticipation's rewrite now, however. - LA @ 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also attempting a rewrite, in my userspace. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give notes, but I have another idea. - LA @ 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that the parties continue to work this out (as it seems to be fairly unacrimonious). You're both right - the plot section should not be a blow-by-blow, but "killing the patient to stop the disease" is not an acceptable solution either. The plot section should include a summary of the complete film, and in the absence of a sufficient trimming, it is better to err on the side of too much information rather than too little. I wish you both luck and look forward to your collaboration. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

What the plot needs is sections. I suggest the following...

Dori Thorell section

Diane Agostini section

Evie Lincoln section/The Lincoln section

Thomas Ahearn section

The last two sections overlap a lot, but the first two nearly stand alone.

In looking at Anticipation's draft, the last paragraph could also be in its own section called Landmarks of New York.

What do you think about that idea? I don't know if there are references, other than the film itself, to these divisions, however they would break up the plot section a bit and make it more readable. - LA @ 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is similar to the idea I had as well, see User:AnmaFinotera/WIP5, using the rough group breaks RHI notes in their description. I went with five, though, as that's how they originally marketed it, though Emily and Clayton possible could go in the preceding section as their appearances were mostly small. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I wish that there were a way to mention the fact that four of the actors in this miniseries were also in Stargate SG-1; JR Bourne, Garwin Sanford, Tom McBeath, and Roger Cross. - LA @ 08:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of dividing the plot summary into sections, and don't think it would be necessary. This plot is not so tortuous that it needs immense amounts of exposition: as some people are going about their everyday lives in NYC, an earthquake shakes things up, and this brings both cataclysmic death and destruction and abrupt change, but also unexpected epiphanies and transformations. We don't need to write about every detail, such as Nikolai's ignorance of where or what Gracie Mansion is--a scene which is only in the film to establish that he's a recent immigrant and doesn't know the city.

My draft is about 500 words, which leaves plenty of room for expansion if there are major elements missing (and I'm sure there are). I recommend its structure as a better start to a reasonable plot summary than the existing 3,000 word tome, if only because it's easier to identify problems and hack them out of a shorter piece! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussion seems to have stalled and no significant efforts have been made to resolve the problem of the huge plot summary, I've boldly replaced it with my much briefer effort. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to AnmaFinotera for an excellent job of correction and polishing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Garner

As there seems to be some debate as to the value of including some of the information about Jennifer Garner's involvement in this film, I thought I'd better set out my views on why this information should be included in this article.

While it's true that actors and actresses often change their appearance for specific parts, and that this is usually not all that notable, some changes can be notable for various reasons. For example, if an actor or actress temporarily changes the length or color of their hair for a role, then that's probably not notable - unless the change is very unusual for some reason (such as women completely shaving their head for a role). However, if they gain or lose a significant amount of weight for a specific role, then that surely is notable and worthy of mention, isn't it? And isn't that also true for other things which may be outside of the accepted societal norms at the time?

So, the reason why I believe mention of Jennifer Garner having her ears pierced for her part in this film are as follows:

1) The accepted societal norm (at least in the USA and Europe) is that women typically have their ears pierced as children or teenagers, while Jennifer didn't have her's pierced especially for this role until she was in her late-20s - Which places her outside of the societal norm and is therefore slightly unusual, and may be considered by some users here to be worthy of note.

2) Jennifer had her ears pierced for the very first time ever specifically for her role in this film. She didn't get them done because she'd decided that she wanted to - she got them done because she needed to have them done specifically for this film. Again, the fact that she had them done specifically for this film is something which is directly and uniquely related to this film, and therefore may be considered notable by some users.

3) Having had her ears pierced, she then let them heal up again after filming was completed, and did not keep them open - Which is again slightly unusual behaviour, as most women will keep their ears pierced once they've had them done, and so could be considered notable in relation to this film.

4) The information comes from a properly referenced article from a Sunday suppliment to a major UK-based newspaper, and so meets the guidelines for verifiability, referencing and sources. Unfortunately, as the magazine does not have a dedicated website containing the article, the only online source available is scans of the article on a long-established Jennifer Garner fan site, which cannot be used as a reference due to copyright issues. However, the scans do exist, and can be viewed by anyone who does a few minutes searching for them if there are any doubts as to the genuineness of the information.

So, to summarise, I believe the information merits inclusion because this was something slightly unusual that Jennifer did specifically for this film, and the only reason she did it when she did appears to be her role in this film. To me, that makes this information notable and worthy of inclusion in this article. If you have other views on this, I'm happy to hear them, although I think you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise!! Sandi saraya (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As I already noted: the material still isn't appropriate nor necessary for Wikipedia. Someone getting their ears pierced is not notable in any way, shape, or fashion. It doesn't matter how unusual this one editor believes this is, there is no reliable source saying it is some insanely unique thing that only Garner has done. It is pure WP:TRIVIA that is completely irrelevant to the film. At best, it should get a side note in Garner's article, but I suspect it would be removed from there as the trivia it is. It is something for laughing about on IMDB, but not for an encyclopedia to cover. Actors and actresses frequently change their appearances to match their roles, including getting piercings, learning new skills, shaving their heads, gaining/losing weight, etc. And no, it is generally not notable unless it is extreme and getting one's ears pierced is not. It is just not worthy of inclusion, nor are the other two statements, both of which are completely unsourced. Both projects have been notified to request additional views.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is something significant about the ear piercings in the film itself, I have to agree that it's very trivial. Actors often have to do things "for the first time" on set, because the role calls for it. Only when that is something important to the character itself is it really worth mentioning here. "Especially", when that information is copied verbatim from IMDb's trivia page. Let them deal with the trivia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's trivial, but on the other hand, this article is so far away from GA quality that it's still in the "let's collect every trivial production fact and see where it goes" phase in my eventualist mind. Not much harm done by leaving a trivial sourced fact in a sub-quality article (removal is not going to improve it much), but if more information about make-up and costumes comes up to build a nice paragraph, it'd be wrong to remove this fact now. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no real harm done by leaving this information in the article, and that removal doesn't actually improve the article in the slightest. And if you'd ever seen the film, you'd know that the earrings (or rather the loss of them) is a fairly notable event for Jennifer's character, as they have a sentimental value, and so Jennifer getting her ears pierced for the role probably does rate a mention of some kind here. So I agree with Sgeureka above that it'd probably be wrong to remove the information at this time. Maybe it can be reworded to make it distinct from IMDb's reference, but that's probably the only change I'd make for now. Later on, if more information about costuming and make-up does come to light, all of that could be combined into a dedicated section (or sub-section) along with this information, which would be an improvement to this article, and the information would then at least be in a more appropriate section. (And, unlike some of the other "information" in the "Production" section, which genuinely IS fairly meaningless trivia, it is at least properly sourced and referenced.) Gidz (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the film, and love it, but having minor sentimental value in the film does not mean her getting her ears pierced is notable in the least. And yeah, the article IS in bad shape, but it can't be improved if it isn't first cleaned up of cruft, copyvio, unsourced info, and trivia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Johnny Depp had some teeth replaced by gold teeth or capped with gold for Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, but there's no mention of it in the article. If something that drastic isn't worth mentioning, I don't think pierced ears are either. Maybe if they had been really pierced in a scene in the film it might be worth mentioning the piercing was real and not faked, but otherwise it seems very trivial. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source thinks it's important enough to mention, then it should be included. If not, then not. Other than that, its just our opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As the News of the World is a long-established UK newspaper, then I'd say that it (and any associated magazine from the same publisher) probably qualifies as a reliable source. As the information in question comes from a magazine interview with Garner herself, and the magazine thought it significant enough to print, then I say it should be included - even if some users believe it to be trivia (which is simply their own individual POV anyway, as one person's trivia is often someone else's useful information...) Despite what some users here seem to believe, deletion of this information does not improve the article in any way, while retaining it does not harm it in the slightest. Emma white20 (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A passing mention in an interview is trivial and trivia. Just because she mentioned it in an interview does not mean it is notable nor useful. It is NOT about the movie, its about her, and retaining it does harm the article as it encourages other trivia to be added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious - with so many articles about good movies needing work, why is anyone wasting time on schlock like this? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean articles on movies you consider "good"? Good is totally subjective, of course, and just because it wasn't a box office smash or a huge ratings hit is not a valid reason to ignore it. Obviously it had some fans if someone would even notice something like a woman piercing her ears for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations to use

• 'Shock' Treatment at Entertainment Weekly
• Aftershock: Earthquake in New York Review at Variety
• Leigh, Danny. "Home movies: Aftershock". Sight & Sound. 11 (8): p. 62. Predictably histrionic -- and quite inordinately lengthy -- account of New York's geologically improbable destruction by a massive earthquake, which stretches credibility still further by positing grizzled ex-fireman Tom Skerritt as the city's best hope of salvation. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help) (That is all the citation has, FYI.)

Hope these are of use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I plan to do some searching as well tonight. One of my articles I decided to revisit from my early days ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All incorporated, thanks! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aftershock: Earthquake in New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C271539%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327070323/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)