Talk:It's Such a Beautiful Day (film)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | I Am So Proud of You was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 2 February 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| Everything Will Be OK was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150819222030/http://chicagoist.com/2012/02/28/cult_animator_don_hertzfeldt_at_the.php to http://chicagoist.com/2012/02/28/cult_animator_don_hertzfeldt_at_the.php
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) 11:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]@Ang-pdx:, please explain your reversion of a community-discussed merge. A merge is not required to lengthen the text. The effusive quotes I removed were sourced to non-WP:RS. If you think that they should be restored, please explain why such WP:SPS are worth using. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: Hi Eggishorn, these quotes provide context to the claim that the motion picture was critically acclaimed. The source of the quotes are the personal blog of filmmaker David Lowery, who provided a quote and a Seattle newspaper. It is worth mentioning that the director of "The Green Knight" called this short film "The film of the year." Revising that sentiment to instead read, "The film received praise from David Lowery" is dull and carries less meaning. If we're going to merge an article into another article, I believe the resulting article ought to be enriched, not reduced. Ang-pdx (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ang-pdx:, this is an encyclopedia article, not a critic's review. There is no need for anything more than "it was critically acclaimed by X" type statements. If such statements truly require more context, then the quotes should be very selective. The quotes presented were very effusive. Why some random director called it a film of the year is not readily apparent. Just because that person is a film director does not make their reaction more important than anyone else's personal blog. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: I don't totally agree as it's a very unusual occurrence for an independent short film to be called "The movie of the year" by a popular Hollywood movie director. It is not a run of the mill blurb from a critic but a truly remarkable statement from a respected professional in the industry. If a popular author calls another writer's short story "the book of the year," that's an interesting statement that people might like to know. Reducing that sentiment to "it was acclaimed" deprives the reader of context. I think the Lowery quote is also helpful in describing the themes of the movie that don't otherwise appear in the article ("full of thoughts about life and death and bodily fluids and years rapidly advancing, coming to ends and beginnings, back and forth, over and over, until one slips indistinguishably into the next," is descriptive and useful, not effusive). I do agree that the other quote you removed, from the film festival, was overlong and bordered on promotional. I'll go ahead and trim these quotes down to something that's hopefully more agreeable. Ang-pdx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ang-pdx:, this is an encyclopedia article, not a critic's review. There is no need for anything more than "it was critically acclaimed by X" type statements. If such statements truly require more context, then the quotes should be very selective. The quotes presented were very effusive. Why some random director called it a film of the year is not readily apparent. Just because that person is a film director does not make their reaction more important than anyone else's personal blog. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
New Section on the Return of the Film
[edit]Hi there,
Should we add a new section about Hertzfeldt re-releasing the film in theaters?