Jump to content

Talk:Audition (1999 film)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review. I'm a big horror fan, but I generally stick to English-language films, so I don't know this one in particular. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is "the Omega Project"? "the film production company Omega Project"?
  • "takes advantage of his position at his film company" This is a little ambiguous.
  • "rights to Murakami's book" You're yet to introduce Murakami.
  • "with what the viewer had previously seen" Do you mean in this film or generally? If the latter, perhaps something like "what viewers had previously seen" would be clearer?
  • It seems that you don't mention the actors playing the non-main characters in the plot section; is there a reason for this?
  • "wake up back in the hotel after he and Asami made love" Was their love-making shown earlier in the film? If so, perhaps it could be mentioned to provide some context.
  • "who repeats what she said on their second date about her excitement on seeing him again." Again, this could be mentioned earlier to provide a little more context.
Well, they go on several dates which are kind of blurred together. They are short scenes. so I cleaned up this phrasing slightly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A review in the Los Angeles Times" Why not name the reviewer?
Added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A review in American Cinematographer stated" Again
Added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mes also notes that avenging angel theme contradicts Asami's actions as one of her previous victims, a manager, was female" This is a little difficult to follow; perhaps it could be rephrased?
Tried to clean up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robin Wood (Film International)" Film International is a peer-reviewed journal; I doubt that Wood is employed by the journal. You needn't mention the journal at all; "The film critic Robin Wood" or "Scholar of film studies Robin Wood" would be fine. (A search suggests that he's definitely notable, but no article yet.) Also, I think you got your reference wrong.
Rephrase as requested. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Omega began work on adapting the novel, they did not want to do another ghost story or have supernatural elements as the Ring had." Could this be rephrased?
Gave it a shot. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just note that I'm not super-keen on your use of colons, but I think it's acceptable. I may have removed one or two earlier in the article; please accept my apologies and put them back if you'd rather. I won't remove any others.
  • "Asami's lines "Kiri-kiri-kiri"" Translation?
This is where things get tricky, as kiri-kiri-kiri is subtitled as "deeper deeper deeper" which is not exactly what she is saying. It's an Onomatopoeia for something that's like a sharp pain. I don't really have a reference for this though. :/ 19:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "but after discussion with Miike, they decided" Who's "they"?
Hmm. referring to both Miike and Shiina here. Changed to be clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was screened theatrically outside festivals in the United States in early August 2001" I don't understand
Cleared up I think. What i'm trying to say is it got a theatrical run, outside of special Festival shows and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IGN gave a negative review" As before, why not name the critic?
Added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sight & Sound reviewed" Again"
Fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Variety gave the film" Again; there are a lot of examples in the reception section.
Credited author. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early 2010s, Time Out conducted a poll with several authors, directors, actors and critics who have worked within the horror genre to vote for their top horror films.[60] Audition placed at number 18 on their top 100 list.[61]" Does this perhaps belong in the aftermath section?
I kind of like it here as it's still about the overall reception of where the film stands in the "horror film cannon". If there are other future lists like this (I believe Time Out did a second one recently), this area would get a bit expanded too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I recommend that you shift the bottom quotebox up to the top of the section? It's clashing with the references on my screen.
Sure. Moved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aston 2013, p. 2." This reference doesn't point to anything. Probably relatedly, "Aston, James; Walliss, John (2013). To See the Saw Movies: Essays on Torture Porn and Post-9/11 Horror. McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-7089-5." doesn't have any footnotes pointing to it.
Fixed! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no complaints about the images or the reliability of the sources.
Hurray! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting; please double-check.
Your edits seemed okay. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article which I really enjoyed reading. If this was FAC, there are three things that I would probably do (I list them here in case you are interested in pursuing FA status): First, I'd probably pick a little at your reference formatting; your PSYART footnote jumps out, for instance, and the publishers of magazines/journals probably aren't necessary. Second, I'd probably be concerned about the lack of Japanese-language references. Third, I'd have a delve into the academic literature myself to see if you'd missed anything. (I might also question your use of colons a bit more.) However, I'm not going to make any demands in this area for GA purposes, and I am sure that this will make a very good GA once a few small changes have been made. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn:, hi! Just wanted to mention that I'm running a bit busy with real life problems at the moment. So I'll try to get to the rest of these issues in a few days. Currently juggling about two and a half jobs at the moment. Will keep you up to date. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn:, okay! I believe I've cleared everything up here. How's it looking? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, just noting that I've seen this. I'm a bit all over the place right now, but I'll get to this at some point soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn:, no rush man. I've been busy myself. I appreciate your patience. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking good. A few more comments:

  • "how it contrasts with what viewers had previously seen" Again, this is ambiguous.
Tried to expand that out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The torture sequence where the mutilation of Aoyama can be seen as revenge for Asami." Yes, what about it? More is needed!
The next statement I feel expands on this, but I tried to combine them to make it a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps massage the prose a little in the first paragraph of the release section? It's a little choppy.
Gave it a go. How's it look? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opined that Audition was different from other torture porn films" Does he claim that it is a torture porn film? You haven't said that it is, just that it influenced them.
I guess they don't explicitly describe it as a torture porn film, so I've re-arranged that sentence a bit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some final edits. The article's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be; it's generally strong and well-put-together. I'll be happy to promote it when you've dealt with these small issues. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn:, I think it should be ok. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great; happy to promote at this time. A pleasure working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references

[edit]

I've removed the references to the comic book cover and the music video. The comic book seems to be a throw back to an older DVD release of the film, but it lacks context in the form of how the comic author felt about audition, or why they used it or anything. Ditto for the music video as without context, this information is trivial at best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I feel that the visual references to the film in modern commercial products show that the work has permeated popular culture (similar to Ringu and Attack on Titan). I don't feel it's enough to warrant a separate section, but it's definitely of interest to those who want to see how the legacy of the film is reflected in new generations of viewers. As I stated in the last edit, there are sure to be more pop culture references to be included.
Re: the comic and music video references, there is additional context for each regarding the creators' decisions to reference Audition, but I didn't want to crowd up the paragraph.
I think the two properly-cited references are no more/less trivial than the notation "The Arrow Video release was exclusively restored in 2K resolution and was scanned from a 35mm interpositive" which appears earlier in the article. That's a super-specific detail for a super-specific audience. I'd like to hear from other editors on this page on this topic. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and you might even be right about the Audition home video info, I just feel like, lets say we did this for The Shining" or The Matrix did this, we'd have a very fancrufty kind of list of things that just say this is a reference to that here or there. If lets' specific or if the comic artists is less specific, I wouldn't mind expanding into some sort of source saying Audition has been variously referenced in media outside film such as comics, etc. That might be giving more weight to it unless specifics can be better. Thoughts @GimmeChoco44:. (btw, good user name!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrzejbanas:. How about a general statement such as "Audition has been referenced in western popular culture such as comics, music videos, and other media." -- with corresponding citations? --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds ok to me! Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audition_(1999_film)/GA1&oldid=1037731578"