Talk:Empire (magazine)

Regular features

Please, whoever it is, please stop adding the paragraph Empire is populist in its coverage and lacks the comprehensive journalism of comparable film magazines such as Sight and Sound or Little White Lies. It focuses on Hollywood fare and its demographic readership is teenage boys. In the past it has devoted entire issues to Star Wars and sex in films.

- Firstly, the more serious Sight and Sound is not comparable to a populist magazine like Empire - magazines such as Total Film and Hotdog are nearer the mark. Secondly, it does cover art films, not just Hollywood fare. Thirdly, as a man in his late thirties, I find the magazine perfectly acceptable and not aimed at teenage boys - if you list the Star Wars films (or even sex in films) as of evidence of its teenage demography I'm afraid that just doesn't fly. Please stop trying to prove a point, thank you. Stephenb (Talk) 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The description of the magazine's content isn't exclusively left to your sole discretion, pal. I felt it was inadequate in conveying the style and content of the magazine. It certainly does lack the depth of magazines such as Sight and Sound so why can't I write it. It certainly is aimed at younger lads in its style and content so why is it wrong to include that? It has devoted entire issues to Star Wars and 'sex in films', so they are not unreasonable examples to highlight the magazine's choice of content. I've rejigged the article leaving in most of your description and added mine back in so I suggest you leave it alone now. It now covers all the points we both want it to include.

213.122.7.244 18:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not left to my sole discretion, no, but the entry must be accurate and balanced, which your edits weren't. I have removed Its target demographic seems to be primarily teenage boys and entire issues have been devoted to Star Wars and sex in films. because "seems to be" is a point of view (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) which I disagree with ("teenage" in particular - I don't think the original Star Wars films have that much pull with a teenage audience!) and entire issues haven't been devoted to Star Wars and sex (though they have been the theme of an issue, this doesn't mean the entire issue was devoted to these subjects). It does lack the serious coverage of Sight and Sound which is why the comparison is left in there - but that magazine is in a minority compared to the similar styles of Total Film, Hotdog etc. You seem to be trying to attack the magazine for no discernible reason except you find it juvenile - did you follow my link to Wikipedia:POINT? Stephenb (Talk) 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you look at the films in the top ten of the most recent user voted Top 201 films - The Shawshank Redemption, The Empire Strikes Back, The Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, The Return of the King, Fight Club, Goodfells and The Matrix - you can take a fair guess at its target audience. Or at least the people who read it. The original poster is not alone in thinking this. If you read the Empire forums there are many people who have voiced the same opinion to the magazine and its recent dumbing down". crazymaner2003 (Talk)

That's a point of view, but many of these films are ten years old or more (Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, Goodfellas, Fight Club, Shawshank) which somewhat weakens your argument. I'm in my late thirties and haven't noticed any "dumbing down" (which I suspect is, like many things accused of "dumbing down" simply a way of saying that they aren't the same as they were before - i.e. they've changed - but without any real evidence of a drop in quality. The last "sex in films" issue was around 1999, BTW - I checked :-) Stephenb (Talk) 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you check the IMDb ratings for those films it is males under the age of eighteen who rate them the heighest. And while Empire haven't done a sex issue in quite a while just this month they have had useless and silly (IMHO) features about bikinis and sandcastles! I'm sure the previous sex issues had much superior content than that! crazymaner2003 (Talk)

Well, neither of those articles was in a "sex in films" issue, so you're comparing apples and oranges. The sandcastles one was visually quite interesting, I thought, and I think a film magazine that covers a wide spectrum of film-related information is fine by me (and could have been an article in the magazine at any point in its history). The bikinis one was largely uninteresting to me because I don't follow fashion - if you're saying that it was really there for other reasons (i.e. the male readership), it may well have been, but specifically teenagers? Still, one article that two people didn't want to read isn't evidence of "dumbing down". Stephenb (Talk) 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I love Empire, but I think it could do with striking a mid point between Hotdog and Total Film and the hiher brow Sight & Sound. The writers are clearly passionate, artistically minded peeps, and there's really no need for them to pander to the populaist crowd. if Empire is the biggest seeling film mag here in the UK, they should start using that as a means to introduce people to what is the biggest art form on the planet, not just celeb culture.

Just a question: I've just created a page for [Guitarist] magazine, and I'm wanting to insert an infobox like the one on this page, with a picture of the magazine's front cover. Does anyone know if I have to worry about copyright? JMalky 10:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Empire-cvr.jpg

Image:Empire-cvr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Empire-cvr.jpg

Image:Empire-cvr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

100 Most Daring films

I removed the above titled section. There was no source for this being an Empire list, and it bears a striking resemblance to a list attributed to Premiere[1].--FreeKresge (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

Published in January 2009 in Turkey stopped.--Olağan Şüpheli (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

R rating?

The section on the 18th birthday edition says that they picked the top R rated moments on film. Firstly, this is a British magazine so it was probably an 18 rating (I don't know what an R rating is), and I found an article on it saying it was an 18 rated thing. Shouldn't it be changed? http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/653032/Empire-goes-adult-18th-birthday/ 109.175.141.220 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should. I have changed it. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.162.93 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

List list lists

There is currently a total of 12 lists (not counting editors or most represented directors) in this article. Currently they are:

1. 195 Empire Masterpiece
2. 15 15th anniversary 15 most influential films of the preceding 15 years
3. 7 18th anniversary top 18-rated moments in film
4. 50 18th anniversary top 50 greatest films 18-rated
5. 100 Greatest Movies 2017
6. top 200 of 500 Greatest movies of all time 2008
7. 14 Most represented directors (from the top 500)
8. 30 Greatest movies of all time 2006
9. 30 Greatest movies of all time 2001
10. 20 Readers' top directors 2005
11. 15 Greatest film characters of all time 2015
12. 15 Greatest film characters of all time 2008
13. 50 Greatest video game characters 2010
14. 12 Editors

With a total of 753 items. Personally I think it makes it harder to read and doesn't add much considering the quantity of information. ~ Ablaze (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should remove all of them except for Editors. Andre Crabtree (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Defamatory content

• What I think should be changed:

The Paragraph under the heading 'Editorial Impartiality' (which has since been changed to 'Editorial Policy') should be removed.

• Why it should be changed:

I believe this paragraph has been added maliciously as it deliberately uses misleading information to imply that Empire takes bribes in return for editorial which is not the case. They use two citations, one is a link to an affiliate disclaimer (a legal requirement on all sites that use affiliate links and one which clearly states that affiliate revenue does NOT affect editorial), and the other is a quote from former editor Mark Dinning, that, while accurate, is deliberately being quoted out of context to support the malicious bribery claim. When read in context, it's clear that he was talking about badgering a colleague to give a film five stars because he loved it, not ordering them to do so due to some underhanded monetary arangement.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

I believe the citations provided by the original editor are exculpatory when properly examined. Many thanks.

Akaraokesoul (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify your conflict of interest, eg on your user page. Axad12 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

..as required by WP:DISCLOSE. Axad12 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that, having looked further into this, I agree with original poster's estimation of the sourcing of the Editorial Policy section. The sources do not bear out the material in that section and it would probably be best if the brief section were to be altogether removed.

That said, however, the requesting editor is required to disclose their conflict of interest as required by WP:DISCLOSE before I am able to make the removal. Axad12 (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: requested disclosure [2] Encoded  Talk 💬 21:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - trivial and inaccurate info removed. STEMinfo (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References