Talk:Bella (2006 film)

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.bellamoviesite.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2008082810026963.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

NON NEUTRAL

I agree with CovenantD, this looks more like a presskit or something.

NPOV

This article reads like a press release from the production company, and the reviews section reads like more hype. I suspect a concerted effort to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting this film. CovenantD 19:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some criticism, but it was removed. That the critics at RT did not give it majority positive I think needs to be mentioned and I'll put that back if it's removed. I bought the movie based on the good word of mouth. I thought it was pleasant, but not great. I'm not a hater or lover of it.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

I am a producer of this film and i am sorry if i adding information to this page that i was not supposed to add. After I discovered this website that had information about our film, I added links to articles and reviews about the film. All of these articles and reviews are from credible 3rd party sources and can be verified by clicking on the link. Please advise me if i did something wrong or if i need to do something better. Thanks. 64.134.91.79 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I've just finished making some changes that I hope helped NPOV the article and make it more encyclopedic, but there's still some work that needs to be done on it. Primarily, the article contains no negative info. Did the movie receive any negative or neutral reviews? It would not be good practice to exclude these. Also, there are parts that read like a press release for the film, maybe because some text is used from such a release. We need to make sure we have permission to use this material (we probably do, since Sean Wolfington is helping with the article). Anyway, the article should read more like an encyclopedia article. I can work more on it and post more specific suggestions here. I'd like help if anyone has time. I've also asked Sean Wolfington to post suggestions here (rather than working directly on the article, per WP:COI). delldot | talk 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest cutting down the quotations from the reviews to maybe a sentence each and paraphrasing. delldot | talk 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to suggestions

Thanks for your changes. I don't know what type of negative information you are looking for but up to this point everything has been very positive for us and we are hoping there is not any negative news in the future. One piece of recent news is that the white house and the department of immigration gave our director an award for the film because it portrays latino's in a positive light and is a positive contribution to the integration of Latino's into America. Here is an article that is about that: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=101940 Thank you for all of your edits... please let me know if i can do anything in the future. Seanwolfington 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Response to your suggestions

Here is a "not so great" of a review - we only got 2.5 out of 4 stars - http://www.reelfilm.com/tiff0604.htm#bella

This is another "not so great" review - http://www.eyeweekly.com/tiff/?p=27 To quote the negative part: "Alejandro Monteverde’s directorial debut is ambitious, but it veers too far into sentimentality to be successful......A good-looking movie with good-looking actors but, ultimately, too pat and too sweet to satisfy."

Obviously i would prefer that these negative reviews not be in the article but i wanted to give you the information you requested.

Thanks again for taking the time to edit this. Sean.Seanwolfington 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article still reads way too much like one huge publicity blurb. Try taking a look at some other Wikipedia entries on films to get a better idea of how this type of article should be written; people don't come to Wikipedia to read extracts of favourable reviews, they want to know what the film is about - and this article mentions nowhere what the actual plot is.

Personally I feel you have too much of a personal vested interest in this film to be an objective, neutral editor on this article, Sean. Wikipedia does not exist to provide free publicity for filmmakers. Arkady Rose 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rv

I just made this revert. The first part was cut and pasted from the website they provided, and the second part, stating that the founder of the group that producers were a part of was censored for abusing children seemed too irrelevant to an article about the movie. delldot talk 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove

Why did you remove the first part which references the directors and producers as being members of Regnum Christi?

Is it irrelevant that a "pro-humanity" movie is made by people that follow the teachings of a child abuser?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I removed the first part because Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission to release the material under the GFDL, and this was a word-for-word copy of material on the site provided. If you want to put the information in your own words, I suppose that would be OK, if you can show that it's relevant.

About your second question, yeah, I do see that as irrelevant. I mean, are we going to list every group the producers are a part of and what the leaders do? Or is there something special about being a part of this group? Also, it's very important that all articles are written from a neutral point of view, not that this material is inherently biased. I don't really care whether the material is in there or not, and I'll let it go if others agree that it should be in the article, but I kind of doubt anyone will. I think if you add it back in, you should just explain why it's important that the producers are members of the group in a neutral way. You know what would work better, though, is if you could find a reliable source in which this relationship is brought up. E.g. if you can find a source criticizing the movie makers for their ties to this group, you could put that in a "reception" section, with a sentence like "producers of the movie were criticized by [...] for their involvement in a group whose leader was censured for child abuse." If you do that, I doubt anyone would object to the inclusion of the material. If you can't find a source, it may have problems with being original research. Peace, delldot talk 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

= thanks for the explanation, i thought the first point was relevant because regnum christi are giving the impression that it is a movie made by them, that it is one of their apostolates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.11.222 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budget typo?

According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482463/business), the budget was $3.3M, not $4.3M as listed in this article. Is there a citation for that number, or should it just be changed to 3.3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix00017 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Style and article content

I just thought I would add this link to the Style Guidelines for film articles, which we can follow to improve the article. There's been some conflict about the intro, so I thought I'd include the guideline here:

Lead section

The lead section of an article serves both as a quick introduction to the film and a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline.

More specifically, for a film article, the first paragraph of the lead section should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country, stars, and director (and possibly writer, if significant). Other notable, verifiable facts about the film may also be included (e.g. "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made..."). It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the film.

The second (and remaining) paragraphs should be a brief treatment of the film's impact: whether critics liked the film (and why), whether it was a commercial success, whether sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any significant influence outside the world of film.

--Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

-Toon⁰⁵ 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PERMISSION TO USE COPYRIGHTED SYNOPSIS GIVEN

To Whom it May Concern, Bella the Movie permits the use of our synopsis of the film "Bella" to be used by Wikipedia and its users under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This permission is given based on the instructions given on Bella (film) Wikipedia page at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_(film). The same permission is also given to use any of the official posters for the film. These were previously deleted due to lack of permission. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us directly. Sean Wolfington Financier and Producer of Bella Sean@Wolfingtons.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwolfington (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

To Whom it May Concern,

Bella the Movie permits the use of its synopsis of the film to be used by Wikipedia and its users under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly.

Erin McCrory
Vice President of Marketing
erin@metanoiafilms.com
erin@bellathemovie.com
305 361 1890
305.397.2150 (fax)
METANOIA FILMS

Bella Productions LLC permits the use of it’s synopsis of the film and all marketing materials on this website to be used by Wikipedia and under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This notice has been placed at the bottom of the website and has been emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by the VP of Marketing.

If you have any questions you can please contact me at: luis@bellathemovie.com

Luis Hernandez
Bella Movie Webmaster
luis@bellathemovie.com

USCCB ranking?

The article states that this movie tied for second place on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop's list of the top ten films of 2007. I believe this is inaccurate inasmuch as USCCB's top-ten lists are unranked; they list the ten (or so) best films of the year but don't provide any further ranking. The list is presented alphabetically so that is why this movie and Juno appear to have tied for second: Bella comes second in the alphabetical list, after Amazing Grace. So the article should simply say that Bella made the top-ten list.

70.39.231.52 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern...

I have expanded the plot summary as I was not really happy with the previous one. Please feel free to give it a copy edit if there's some fault in grammar. Slightlymad 10:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked your revisions over and made a couple of changes for clarity, but I'm not sure what to do about the last paragraph. Overall, I think your version is better, but "girls" sounds too colloquial, as Nina is a grown woman. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable at that point to collectively call them both "girls" since Bella is barely a woman in the sense that she has not reached puberty yet (She's probably around age 7–8 in the movie). Slightlymad 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]