Jump to content

Talk:Sorcerer (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title

Does anyone know why this film was titled "Sorcerer"? For the life I've me I can't get any info on that, even after reading some film encyclopedias and the book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. Anyone? Willerror 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading some interview in which Friedkin said that the "sorcerer" the title referred to was fate; in a sort of allegorical sense, I guess. --85.210.33.72 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from any allegorical meanings (and I suspect there must be one, though I do not know what), "Sorcerer" is the name painted on the side of one of the trucks driven by the protagonists. Format 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Great film. It's possible that the title was, to some, misleading. The word "sorcerer" conjures in most folks' minds a fantasy film with dragons and wizards. This film was gritty and oozing with realism, so there may have been a disconnect there. It's a shame it failed. It deserved better. My fave Friedkin film! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.98 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Spoofs

Just a quick note to clear up any confusion for the few that will have seen all three of the works mentioned, the Simpson's episode mentioned does spoof the Tangerine Dream music (which is why it is worth leaving in the article) but the visuals for the bridge sequence are actually spoofing The Wages of Fear.User:MarnetteD | Talk 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mr Plow scene looks just like the sagging bridge from Sorcerer to me. Format 08:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorcerer is a re-make of The Wages of Fear anyway. Badgerpatrol 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Anyway"??!?? True, most remakes are trash, but this one was worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.98 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a "remake"

This is not really a remake of the 1953 film, but rather a different interpretation of the same source material, Georges Arnaud's novel "Le Salaire de la peur." Friedkin has always chafed at people calling it a remake. I tend to agree with him. No one considers Hammer's "Curse of Frankenstein" to be a "remake" of the Karloff film, but for some reason "remake" has stuck to "Sorcerer." Rather than saying it's a remake of the Cluzot film, why not something like "It the third film based on the novel 'The Wages of Fear' by Georges Arnaud, the preceding films being 'The Wages of Fear' (1953) and 'Hell's Highway' (1958)."QSFan (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QSFan (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. By the way remakes weren't very common even in 1977. Second thing, someone should add (I will probably) something about the current trend to reappreciate it, I've seen one reviewer who slammed it in 1977 but a couple of years ago he admitted that he made a mistake in passing such a judgement back then. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment

I think the article is now good to be reassessed for B-class, however personally I feel it meets all the criteria for the Good or even Featured article BUT I must edit some other sections first too.

Next to go:

  • Cast
  • Details about hardships and clashes within the crew during the filming
  • Reception

I have all necessary materials to improve all the listed above, but I don't have enough time to do it now in one go.

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Try looking at this automated script. It highlights a few problems that will stand in the way of Good article status. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Still a stub?

The project's quality needs to be reevaluated. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This movie is also rated as a stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_%281999_film%29 Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I upgraded the quality to C. It'll hit B with a few simple edits. Just clean up the intro and expand the plot. You're on your way toward Good, but some of the prose still needs to be cleaned up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'm perfectly aware what needs to be cleared and upgraded, and I have 10x more materials than what I've already put but I simply don't have that much time to implement it all right away, but thanks!!! Plot will be described very meticulously with even breaking down of each prologues, and then I will split it into sections corresponding to segments of the movie. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What will be added for sure:

  • improved plot
  • meticulous details of very troubled production, all the hazards and problems that Friedkin and his crew faced
  • improved section covering the movie's critical reception
  • many quotes describing the difficulties of shooting particular scenes from actors' point of view

I will also provide original sketches of the trucks which will be very rare and unique - after clearing it with the owner, and he'd upload it to Commons.

I hope I will also be able to provide as many other relevant photos as possible.

Some details about the critical reception will also be improved in order to portray it in more accurate manner.

I'd also like to add that certain elements already existing in the article are / were tentative, such as info on shooting the bridge sequence. I just put it like that because I didn't have more time, but I wanted to have a reliable source for the story. The actual story I'll eventually put is 3 times longer. Almost everything is like that. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't go too overboard on the plot. Remember, WP:FILMPLOT suggests a limit of 700 words. Also, don't go too overboard on the long quotations. There are actually copyright concerns involved. It's usually best to summarize quotations, in your own words, though a few choice quotations are always good. MOS:QUOTE and WP:Quotations have very useful guidelines and rules.
It sounds like you'll have enough detail to hit Good very soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you moved the bit about trucks to the influences section which was a very good move, however after providing those production sketches, I've had no other choice but to revert it to the previous layout. I will add some more info about those trucks tomorrow so that the placement of those pictures will be more fitting. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, at the time, it seemed like a good idea, but now that you've got sketches and such, it seems like they probably deserve their own subsection. Here's something you might consider, if it makes sense to you:
  • Development (writing, influences, license)
  • Pre-production (casting, characterization)
  • Production (filming, locations, trucks, music)
  • Post-production (any future post-production subsections)
It's not necessary, but MOS:FILM suggests it. It might be easier to get a Good/Featured Article review, but some editors prefer a more idiosyncratic style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your suggestions, I've been thinking about putting those elements together...I'll add "themes" subsection to the "title" subsection so that it'd read "title and themes"; I will also add a segment about editing and most likely put some information about interal conflicts within the film crew, but I'm not sure if I'd create a new subsection for that...BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%282012_film%29 - look at the intro length, Sorcerer's one is shorter, so I don't think its length is a concern; it will be more compact, though, that's for sure...I'd also like to put a subsection within the development arch where I'd put the info about the Friedkin's aims and ambitions prior to the actual shooting. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Prometheus is four times longer. The lead is summarizing is very long article. This article does not have enough information in it yet to support such a large lead. As well, the lead is only supposed to summarize the contents of the article, not provide trivia. The lead needs to be trimmed down to 3-4 paragraphs, and the extra details need to be moved into the body. Paragraphs 2 and 3 probably need to be combined and summarized. I'd suggest something like this:
"It was originally conceived as a small, $2.5 million production, but the budget expanded to $22 million, a substantial sum for the time. [Source] says that Friedkin had always seen Francis Ford Coppola as his competitor, so when Coppola headed to the Philippines to direct Apocalypse Now, Friedkin went to South America to shoot Sorcerer.[4] The film received mixed reviews at release but has been reassessed more positively by modern critics."
Try to avoid passive voice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can make Sorcerer two times longer than Prometheus, don't you worry. As for revised intro - I exactly intended it to be something like this and then I'd reintegrate more detailed info about the initial budget, etc. in an appropriate section in the main body. Anyway, why is passive voice to be eschewed? I consider myself to be an expert at it, and I am also specialized in formal language. It is also one of the key components of academic language. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a problem about the movie's gross. Some sources indicate $9m and some $12, and then there's a mix-up about the domestic and international gross. I, however, believe that most sources claim $9m domestic, however is there a way to insert two values and indicate different sources claim different values? Or should I not worry about it? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I know you've already said I'm on a good way to make it a good article (and using a different account I've made at least 2 other articles receive "good article"), but do you think it could ever achieve "featured article" distinction? I am willing to dedicate my entire lifetime to do that, and I'm dead serious. Also, regarding films like Prometheus being 3-4 times bigger, it's extremely easy to find sources about highly successful contemporary film made in the internet era as opposed to highly obscure film from more than 35 years ago. By the way, what will be done next in this article will be: rewriting plot section in the most meticulous way possible and then adding information about conflicts on the set and then about critical reception (both at the time of release and in recent times - because they are two opposing trends, scorn back then, regarding it as a forgotten masterpiece now). I could also upload some promotional materials, such as lobby cards and maybe some screenshots from the movie but I'm a strong opponent of using fair use-inclined images...However, I could insert CC picture depicting one of the locations in which the movie was shot, Veracruz. One other major theme that is of paramount relevance is this movie contribution to dawn of the New Hollywood era (which was also signalled by Star Wars's success), I will cover it in great depth. I will add one sentence about it to the intro and then meticulously dissect it on the basis of primary sources. I highly appreciate your help, you are a wonderful co-contributor! Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Many people are prejudiced against passive voice in formal writing. When the agent isn't important, passive voice makes sense. In more formal, descriptive writing, it's generally preferable to use active voice:

  • "The studio pressured the director to make cuts."
  • "The director was pressured to make cuts."
  • "The director was pressured to make cuts by the studio."

The first one is preferable. The second one is unclear, and the third one is verbose. In some cases, people will use passive voice to avoid attribution:

  • "Mistakes were made."
  • "The director was hailed as a genius."
  • "It is said to be true."

In each of those cases, one is invariably drawn to ask, "By whom?" Who made the mistakes? It's a calculated attempt to avoid assigning responsibility to a specific person. Who hailed the director as a genius? This is more common on Wikipedia, where people want to use peacock terms to describe their favorite entertainers, without having to do the research necessary to dig up a relevant quotation. The third case is an obvious example of weasel words, which Wikipedia specifically disallows. Something is either true or it isn't. Even more importantly, the authority that claims it to be true/untrue must be cited.

When something is cited, it's less important to avoid passive voice. For example, you've got some cited statements that use passive voice. This is fine. However, grumpy English teachers and copy editors may harass you, from time to time.

As far as disputed numbers go, standard practice is to report each value, with a source. Sometimes, it's reported as a range. For example, "$9M to $12M[1][2]". If one source is highly reliable and another source is dubious, ignore the dubious source. There's a degree of subjectivity involved in determining such things, but one can get help at WP:RS/N. Blogs and other self-published sources, in particular, should be avoided.

And, finally, I don't have much experience with featured articles, unfortunately. I do know that the criteria are rather impressive. However, if random TV show episodes can make it to featured article status, then anything can. I agree about the difficulty in researching older, pre-Internet topics. Still, it's surprising what one can find with the right searches. The biggest problem is that the Internet, collectively, has a short memory and even shorter attention span. Anecdotes and glorified press releases are easy to come by, but actual analysis is much harder. The more analysis you add, the greater the chance to hit Good/Featured.

Many people loooove adding pictures to articles. Myself, I've always thought a lot of the pictures were gratuitous, but I seem to be in the extreme minority. Keeping that in mind, I would advise that you add whatever relevant pictures you can find. The articles that I work on tend to be a bit drab, but I've been trying to force myself to spice them up with gratuitous pictures. A free shot of Veracruz would work well.

I haven't really done anything but make a few grammar fixes and point out some Wikipedia policies, but thank you for saying such nice things about my minor contributions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. One question: what if I know that a certain information is correct and it's a fact but only someone on a blog wrote about it? Because in case of movies like Sorcerer, fans are sometimes a lot more educated than a lot of so-called scholars. I only quoted blogs if there was absolutely no other source confirming such fact... Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a tough call. Policy allows for the use of self-published work, when it's done by recognized experts. Otherwise, the official suggestion is to cite the information from a more reliable source. Usually, if you can find it on a blog, you can find it elsewhere, too. I've had the most success in restricting my searches to newspapers and journals, such as "major themes" sorcerer friedkin site:nytimes.com. That allows me to focus entirely on reliable sources, without blogs cluttering the results. I usually just keep substituting different sites, until someone finally produces what I need. This is getting a little more difficult these days, given how many sites are moving their archive behind paywalls, but nobody ever said citing sources was going to be easy. As it stands, the article could use a little bit of cleanup with regards to sources, but I'm not a hardliner. I'm fine with promoting it to B-class, as soon as you fill out the plot summary. I'd do it myself, but I'd need to watch the film again and take notes. The last time I did that, I ended up watching the film twice in a row and spending hours converting my notes to readable prose. And that was for a film I didn't even like. I think I'm a bit burnt out on that process, for a little while longer, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll rewrite the plot next week. BTW certain things regarding this movie could be found only on blogs, I know assorted resources inside out. That being said, I think only 2-3 such occurences are in the text. Or not even 3. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW I just noticed Alien vs Predator (film) has been recognized as a featured article, and it is smaller in size than this one. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
B and C articles should still have reliable sources, but I give them some degree of leeway. One of your blog citations is itself citing a magazine article. You could try to find that magazine yourself. Another one is arguably an expert in his field. It's not really a huge deal yet, but you may run into trouble when being promoted to Good or Featured. Personally, I think some of those articles are a bit verbose and padded with trivia (rather than analysis), so I like it when more concise (or, failing that, in-depth) articles get promoted. I can't really complain, though, because I'm just a casual editor. I've almost completely rewritten "cult film", but that's one of my few major undertakings. It's difficult to find a middle ground between breezy, pop culture magazines and dry, academic journals. Sometimes I wish the pop culture articles were more academic and the academic articles were more accessible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Which blog entry quotes a magazine precisely? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
#26, Joie Chitwood as Jackie Scanlon: "From an article (picked up from the Sorcerer pressbook, I suspect) that appeared in the Henderson Home News on September 27, 1977" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ha! I sent that article to the blog author myself, but at the time of posting this on wikipedia I forgot its url!!! But later on, I recollected its url and it's here on wikipedia used for some other reference, so no problem - I will fix it! Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten the plot section but I haven't completed it yet. I have descriptions of 4 prologue vignettes and I'm at around 600 words already. I expect whole to be at 900 words and I'll probably need some external help in order to truncate it. I could send you / show you what I've already done by the way, but I'm not sure what way would you prefer? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You can write the plot summary to be as verbose as you want, and I can help edit it down. I don't mind doing that, and I've gotten pretty good at it. I've seen plot summaries that were >1500 words, and I got them down to 500-600 words, so it's no problem to go from 900 to 700. Some editors believe that only B movies should be limited to 400-700, and serious, artistic films are allowed to break all the rules. Ha. So, don't worry overmuch, if you end up going beyond 700. There's some precedent. The biggest problem is when you get scene-by-scene summaries, drowning in unnecessary detail.
Just add it to the article normally, and I'll get around to editing it. Nobody will complain, if it happens to sit at 900+ words for a few days. If it makes you feel better, you can include a brief HTML comment about how it will eventually be edited down: <!-- Note: this plot summary is too long; however, it is a work in progress and is being discussed on the talk page. --> This will only be visible in the markup, not in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I trimmed it to 800 words and I believe it would be extremely hard to go down under that. The films is surely artistic but I eschewed going scene-by-scene and as for the action scenes in the main part of the movie, I didn't write any details at all about them Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Under what conditions could I insert a screenshot from the movie? or a clip? I hate the legal side of it, but in case of the bridge sequence which is iconic, a picture of the bridge with a truck and a character set in motion would be fitting. However, I could do without it and I wouldn't complain.

BTW Could lobby cards with principal characters be used in this article per fair use?Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The last thing for now is: the budget is cited as $21m and this comes from an article from 1977, I found 4 respectable articles from 2013 claiming it to be $22m. I don't know what to do - it bothers me because in the intro I stated $22m and in the box it's $21m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salt The Fries 86 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You can make a good case for fair use, if you're commenting on or analyzing the scene. If it's just for decoration, then you may run into problems. Personally, I wouldn't include any screenshots, unless they're included to illustrate critical analysis. It's not worth the hassle of dealing with the legal issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

I pruned the plot summary down to a little under 700 words. I don't think much detail is missing. Mostly, I just reworded the sentences to use fewer words. Scanlon and Manzon has somewhat detailed backstories, which could possibly be pruned down a little more, if you're willing to gloss over non-critical details. That would leave more space open to Part III, which is a bit minimal.

Here's one idea for a more minimal backstory:

Manzon: "Victor Manzon lives a live of comfort and luxury, but has been accused of fraud. Given 24 hours to make amends, Manzon convinces his brother to seek help from their father. When his father refuses to help, Manzon's brother shocks him, by committing suicide. Faced with impending doom, Manzon leaves both his country and wife."

Scanlon: "Jackie Scanlon, a getaway driver, is involved in the murder of a priest, during a robbery on a church. When a violent argument breaks out in the car, Scanlon loses control, and everyone but Scanlon is killed. Scanlon flees the country when his friend, Vinnie, reveals that the priest was the brother of Carlo Ricci, a mob boss."

It's basically the same thing, but it simply and explicitly states the themes and ideas, rather than demonstrating them. It also necessarily sacrifices many less important details, such as the anniversary gift, the dinner, the gang's nationality, and the specific details of the crimes. If you find this too minimalist, that's quite understandable, but it would allow you to expand the other sections, while staying under the 700 word guideline. If you want to push it to 750-800 words, you could try that, too, but Good/Featured will probably require some merciless editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

One question, I started editing cast section in order to provide as much information as possible, however in case of other roles beyond the principal four, I'd have hard time finding citations and quotes, actually beyond Ramon's Bieri character of which there is an odd mention or two (which in itself is a feat to find), I won't ever find any quote from a respectable source about any other character. Can some descriptions be done without citations? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You can use the film itself as a primary source. As long as your claims are verifiable and not original research, you're OK. Just stick to neutral facts. Wikipedia is fairly strict about such things. For example, you're not even allowed to label characters as protagonists or antagonists, because to do so would be original research. However, to state that Dorothy Gale is a farm girl from Kansas needs no citation; it's evident from the film. If you want to stray from dispassionate facts about the characters, you'll need citations. Sometimes you can adapt anecdotes or quotations from later interviews. In the case of minor characters, it might be best to simply remove them. The cast list is already arguably too long, and this level of excessive detail can sometimes work against Good/Featured. There's no hard rule, but most articles focus primarily on the principals and major supporting characters, with the rest summarized or ignored. For example, the Star Wars article doesn't mention anyone beyond the principle cast. In an ensemble production, you might see longer cast lists, but it would be difficult to make that argument about Sorcerer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Should I also treat materials on Sorcerer DVD as some quotable source and put an appropriate reference entry as in some MA thesis? There are some texts, specifically production notes which also provide quotes from actors or the director...And tell me what would be the best solution for Sorcerer's cast. There are 4 principal characters who are obvious to name, then you have Ramon Bieri whose name is also included along those 4 on a poster, then you have Karl John who must be mentioned as well, but after that of course all other roles are minor, but in case of this movie, there are a lot of actors who do semi-important things but play lesser roles, hell - Vinnie is a small role, Randy Jurgensen's on the screen for like a minute in total yet he's one of the most important characters, so it's hard... BTW I could make descriptions of all the roles listed there, I really could! Could I make some distinction, some split between principals and minor/secondary characters? like principals would be covered in greater depth and secondary characters in a separate continuous paragraph? I also think cast section would give me an opportunity to provide greater depth to the plot (without spoiling it of course) and a nice way to reconcile the plot's word limit with more information, right? I also think the movie Prometheus could serve as a wiki template for cast section in here... Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I understand, material included on the DVD is a reliable source. You can treat it like liner notes on a CD. I think there's even a citation template for such things, but I forget.
I wish I had a better answer for the cast list, but I really don't know. In cases like this, I usually refer to Good/Featured articles and follow their lead. One rule of thumb that I've heard is that anything you can reliably source is notable; anything that needs a Herculean effort is not notable. I've seen people move the minor characters into a separate, continuous paragraph, and it seems like a very workable solution. And, yes, the cast list does open itself to some expansion on the characters, as they relate to the plot. You could easily move some of the more extraneous (yet interesting) details about the principal cast (such as Scanlon being Irish) down to the cast list. Or, if you were of a mind, you could try to expand somewhat with specifics about their actions and character arcs. I wouldn't make it too detailed, though, or else you might be asked to edit it down. I agree that Prometheus seems like a good template. I myself tried to prune down some of the extraneous detail in the Prometheus article, but I got shot down. Ha. Oh well. But I have to admit that it's quite detailed and well-sourced, rather than mere lists of trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Differentiation between reception and legacy

Could someone please tell me what should be covered in legacy? What's the best way to differentiate critical reception upon the release and critical revisionism of late 00s/2010s?

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS:FILM gives some good guidelines. Usually, what I do is list the original critical reception in one paragraph, with representative reviews, and then list the reappraisal in a second paragraph, again with representative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are helpful, but I sometimes find it easier to do my own research. Reviews should be from notable sources, but I often like to include non-mainstream, niche publications, such as Film Threat.
Legacy should explain the affect on popular culture, in prose form. For Sorcerer, I'd probably concentrate on New Hollywood, affect on Friedkin's reputation and popularity, etc. Jurassic Park (film) notes that the film made many "best of" lists, inspired a revolutionary view of special effects, and inspired Lucas to start his second Star Wars trilogy. Some articles combine Reception and Legacy, such as The Terminator. This makes the section potentially rather large, but you need not worry about what belongs where.
Awards can be its own category, or it can be under Reception. I favor making it a subsection under Reception, but MOS:FILM is ambivalent about this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Place for a meaningful discussion of the poster

I have some relevant source discussing the fact that the image for the poster comes from the original film negative and that in a subsequent frame the truck falls into the river. Where should I put it?

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of posters, soundtracks, etc usually go under a subsection of Release called Marketing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment for featured article

So Alien vs. Predator film is officially twice as small as Sorcerer, amd the former received "featured article" star. I'm not calling for it yet, I know I can add a lot more, but at this point I will call it quits and only rework cast section which I already taken care of and it exists on my hard drive but I must add more references to it before publishing it. It is around the same length as Prometheus's. What do you think? Do you think it would suffice? I tried that experimental script you suggested, I think it is incapable of heuristic and hollistic approach to assessment, as it is an artificial creation after all... Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend doing a peer review first. I think there needs to be more work done. For example, the references are not streamlined. There is inconsistency in presenting dates, showing works and publishers (and using the right field), and using page numbers. See American Beauty (film) as an example with streamlined references. In the article body, there are a lot of skeleton paragraphs. If you review other Featured Articles, the passages tend to be more unified. I think there is also too much quoting at length. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Erik is right. The content is there, but the article needs more work on presentation and adherence to the manual of style:
  • According to WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead section should have three to four paragraphs. WP:LEADCITE suggests summarizing the contents of the article, which generally does not require citations. Your lead is too long and detailed, and it introduces facts not in the article body. This can be a problem for Good/Featured.
  • WP:QUOTE has some helpful suggestions on how/when to quote. You have a lot of quotations, some of which are quite lengthy. Some of them probably need to be summarized.
  • Cracked.com is not a reliable source. Some of the others are debatable (for example, eFilmCritic), but that one is definitely not WP:RS.
  • MOS:PARAGRAPHS and WP:BETTER have some suggestions on paragraphs. Short (especially, single sentence) paragraphs should be avoided.
  • WP:LEAD and WP:TOC have some hints on the table of contents. Your TOC is a bit too detailed and long. You can inhibit some of the level 3 subheadings from showing up, consolidate them, or collapse the TOC.
  • Reception is usually its own section, rather than a subsection of Release, but I don't see a big problem if you want to keep it where it is.
  • You probably want to have someone do copy editing and clean-up before you jump to Good/Featured. For example, see WP:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/How_to for some hints. You can get the Guild of Copy Editors to do it for you. Embarrassingly, I think I introduced a few grammatical errors, as well. When lazy, I often resort to poor constructions, such as "he did this, with that happening." In a Featured article, that should be avoided. Also, nouns should not precede verbs ending in -ing. For example, "with only Kassem managing to escape". That one was probably my fault, too. Like I said, I'm pretty lazy sometimes. However, we'll need to fix the grammar before rushing into Featured.
Featured is very nit-picky. You can fail it for grammar, style, or spelling. As it stands, I think we're probably a bit iffy for Good. It probably needs more attention to the WP:MOS and copy editing before we're assured successful promotion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Erik and NPR. @Erik: which paragraphs do you consider skeletal? What if an idea is distinctive but cannot be expanded because there isn't any material available? I will unify references to the very last fullstop and comma. @NRP, why do you think introduction has something that is not discussed in the body? you mean about the impact of its simultaneous release with Star Wars? or the restored version and Friedkin's planned award? I'd rather make article twice longer if you still think it's too long. Table of contents - fair point, I wanted to restructure it, I'll combine certain (sub-sections), I'll reshuffle the whole and I'll do it tomorrow. Though I have a problem, there are certain critical pieces that evaluate certain elements of the film in an isolated context - cinematography, etc. - I will soon have so much info that I won't know whether to post those under production or under critical reception...And yes, you committed some lazy writing phrases and grammar but so did I. As far as quoting is concerned, where do you think is overused? The section about "court case and restoration" isn't mine at all and it's almost all quotes. I can rework that. Cracked.com article contains information that is otherwise impossible to get in a published form. I could post a scan of that lobby card discl~aimer, etc. but apart from blogs I wouldn't get any other semi-reliable source, but I know for fact that is true, so we have to use common sense as well. Peter Sobczynski wrote an excellent scholarly feature on Sorcerer at eFilmcritic that would be ridiculous to dismiss. I don't post some whatever random articles I come across, and as you've seen in critical reception section, negative criticisms are also very important to me. Reception section is exactly like in Prometheus article and that one is featured, so I don't know. Anyway, thanks, looking forward to chiseling it up some more.Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up some references. Some ones do not have an author, or they refer to month and year, but not to a particular day. I'm sure there's some more to be cleaned up. I also improved table of contents, restructured some parts of the article as well as filled in cast details with very limited resources. Of course, still, everything could be improved.Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW a lot of paragraphs which are shorter are meant to be placeholders, but you have to point out precisely which of them should be improved in their length. BTW reference no #33 (at present) "William Friedkin's New Film, "Sorcerer", An Intense and Different Suspense Story". Henderson Home News. 1977-09-29. Retrieved 2013-05-24. is actually also from pressbook, which is just reprinted there.Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding quotes, the ones about soundtrack and music could definetly be summarized and I was the one to insert them, as well as one about Friedkin recalling working with Scheider and one about a stunt in New Jersey; the ones from contemporary revisionism section, Peter Hanson and Stephen King are not mine, but I can see they too could be summarized; and of course the ones from court case and restoration. This section will be btw improved and restructured, there has been quite a few new developments on this front btw. I will also create a sub-sub-section of "filming" sub-section, called "on-set conflicts and technical problems". I will also create a new major section called "Categorization" where I will discuss the movie's categorization as remake and how Friedkin on at least dozen quotable instances strongly opposed this label and never treated the film as such, as well as I will present some examples of media outlets casually calling it a "remake" without any consideration, as well as some other critics who like Friedkin, opposed this label as well. But most of all, I'd rather adhere the whole article to the Manual of Style before making any new additions.Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel completely burnt out now, and I believe my commitment became morbid and is on OCD level. I believe there are five things left to do - summarize longer quotes, restructure "court case and restoration" section, add more positive reviews under "contemporary revisionism" section and add a new section called Legacy where an impact on Hollywood show-business would be discussed, the retreat from auteur cinema to studio-controlled one, etc., addition of Categorization section, as well as I'd bring up 2 film-makers influenced by Sorcerer, one of them is Steven Soderbergh. Of course, further proof-reading and unision of references is required, but I've done some of it today. Maybe also tenses could be unified, I'm not sure if reviews should be brought up by saying "XYZ states" or "XYZ stated". Anyway, I can no longer go alone. I'd really appreciate your help. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Apart from some copy-editing, proof-reading, etc. which was already done to some extent, only Legacy section is to be added - but I don't have time for it today, as I worked 4 and half hours straight anyway. Do you think I adequately applied all of your suggestions??? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant to reply earlier, but I was a bit busy and distracted. Certainly, no criticism should take away from the great job that you've done here. Sometimes it's best to take a break, rather than risk burn out. It looks pretty good. I'm a little reluctant to dive in and start making big changes to the article, because I'm not sure which paragraphs are place-holders and which sections are effectively complete. For example, the Casting subsection has lots of information about Steve McQueen in the early parts. Much of that could be combined. The remaining Scanlon paragraphs could also be combined into a second paragraph. The rest could probably be split into two paragraphs. If it's safe for me to do so, then I could go in and do some edits like that. Besides that, there's the standard copy editing that needs to be done, but we've already discussed that (and much of it is already fixed). I don't want to seem too nitpicky or harp on anything. About tense, I'm not sure there's an official policy. For what its worth, Prometheus standardized on past tense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is place-holder anymore. Feel free to apply any changes you see fit. From what is present in article, only reasons for its harsh criticism upon the release might be added, and maybe some words about Friedkin's admiration for Clouzot who was obviously also a great source of inspiration. And like I said, the Legacy section should be created discussing the impact of this movie in comparison with Star Wars, etc. I already took care of casting section, I hope it reads well now, I know you could have a beef with chronology but it's impossible to talk about Ventura and Mastroianni without McQueen because their involvement was dependent on him. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
One thing that needs to be addressed and I'd have done it by now if I knew what standard to settle on is to fix references with relation to page numbers. As of now, I listed all the pages cited for each book that was quoted more than once. But each of the footnotes if you hover over one, shows all the pages in bulk and not individually. I don't know what standard to settle on, I tried to use Template:Rp but some variations looked ugly or impractical or both. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

referencing books - multiple quotations vs single ones

Hello, I have a problem, I started using Rp template, but I wonder if I should make references to these books that I quoted only one time also with Rp template or not? I could've corrected the whole article using Rp template, but I'd appreciate some guidance. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just use it on sources that require many citations. Some people consider it too distracting to use unless necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with NRP. I am a big fan of the rp template—it makes much more sense for a hypertext medium like HTML than the Harvard or (even worse) manual cites—but there is no reason to use it if the cite is used only once. Incorporate the page numbers into the cite itself in such cases. Ylee (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
tell me what do you think about this - multiple quotations of the same source from just one page: should I leave them as they are, that is the page will be shown in references section? or should I apply Template:Rp in-text, too? Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW the only quotes left which require applying Template:Rp are from The Friedkin's Connection, I have a deadline on an article outside wikipedia today, so I'm dropping it for now, but might return to it in several hours or tomorrow.Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Rp is fine to use for multiple quotations of the same source from one page. Ylee (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Studio Co-Production

It is noteworthy that major studio co-productions before this film were very rare. The first was The Towering Inferno in 1974, and the next was likely Friedkin's Sorcerer. More detail on this would be welcome. And whenever "the studio" is referenced in the article, it is necessary to indicate which one is being talked about at that point.

On another note, I prefer quotes in cases where the filmmaker is describing the making of the film and his intentions. In the case of this page, I would recommend restoring the Friedkin quote on Walon Green, as it comes across to the reader as more authentic and precise than any paraphrased version.

But let me say Salt The Fries 86 seems to have done a good job building up this article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding removing speculation

While I somewhat understand the logic, the events in section court case and restoration are presented chronologically and they present continuity of developments. How is wanting to provide as much detail as possible a bad thing? Maybe this is how some of editors are accustomed to work, never caring about the big picture, just applying changes for the sake of changes,, but that is how I work. Furthermore, I don't understand how official Twitter account of the director William Friedkin is not a reliable source, and besides, I was appalled to see that the editor who did those changes (which are now undone and will forever be undone) did not even bother to see that he resulted in ruining reference syntax. Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Unification of references

We all have to agree on one standard, I've noticed some changes since I last accessed the article but I think this is still work in progress so I'm not sure what I could touch or not...As far as I'm concerned these changes are ok and heading in good direction.

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean the edit that switched to using Harvard references? I wasn't too keen on that change. I much prefer using the RP template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I also prefer the RP template. BTW I cannot contribute at the moment as I have to finish my own MA thesis and I'm very short on time Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:CITEVAR. If the article already used RP for the bulk of its citations, the format should not have been arbitrarily changed throughout to another. Ylee (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about mentioning that, but I didn't want to make a big deal of it. If I had caught the changeover early enough, I probably would have reverted it, but switching the article back to RP now would probably be tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize now that I started copy editing a few hours after the change, so I accidentally "sealed" the harv refs. Oops! ;-) ~HueSatLum 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

William Friedkin/Misplaced Master/Blu-Ray???

Wow!!! This article is lengthy. So lengthy I didn't read it. But did the editor/s include Wm Friedkin's struggle to get ahold of his director's cut??? As late as 2012, Friedkin was scheduled to begin civil litigation against Paramount Pictures over the "master" of "Sorcerer". http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/william-friedkin-sorcerer-paramount-universal-311971

Apparently he did obtain it. It was shown at both the 2013Venice and Paris film festivals. http://twitchfilm.com/2013/12/william-friedkins-sorcerer-celebrated-in-paris-before-its-worldwide-release.html

How did he obtain it??? Did Paramount finally fork it over, or was it ordered by a federal judge to do it???

At the Venice Film Festival, Friedkin remarked that the Blu-Ray version was "closest" to the version he wished to release theatrically in the summer of 1977. Does that mean that this version contains additional footage, or is just a better quality than the theatrical version???

If this is not already included in this VAST article, it needs to be.User:JCHeverly 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • K. I looked at the article agin, starting at the bottom and see that all my questions were answered. I do understand that the restored version is also set to premiere on TCM sometime in the Spring of 2014. I don't know how so much could be written about a movie that did so poorly at the box office. Friedkin himself admitted that "Sorcerer" was not his personal best or favorite of his films. The only reason he devoted so much time to the movie was of the missing "master" which caused it to be the last of his movies to be transferred to Blu-Ray. , , As an editor, the thing that gets me about Wikipedia is how lengthy some articles are while others that I feel are important just barely rate a stub.User:JCHeverly 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why were the photos of the cast removed?

I really want to know who did it and on what grounds? I used screencaps from a copy of the movie whose copyright has expired. You had no rights to do this.

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What sources do have suggesting that this is a public domain film? There are sources in this article suggesting that legal issues have been resolved and that Universal owns the picture. Freshh! (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

the language disclaimer

The disclaimer explaining that "Sorceror" was in English was an actually title card projected at the beginning of the film, not just a printed statement to be displayed in theatre lobbys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.115.60 (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dynamite or nitroglycerin

The article contradicts itself about what's being transported. If there's no dynamite involved, the references to dynamite need to come out completely. On the other hand, even if the dynamite is sweating nitroglycerin, it's still wrong to say that the trucks are "transporting nitroglycerin." So, one or the other, please. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary

Whoever wrote the summary misunderstood the plot at a number of points. I've corrected the timeline of Serrano and Kassem's deaths.

Another that needs correction: Nilo's death did not occur until after Dominguez had begun to hallucinate, and Dominguez did not know of this until his hallucination ended. 24.62.224.22 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Another thing

A reviewer is quoted as saying that the film has a "cliffhanger finale." It does not. It may appear that way to viewers who don't watch the last minute of the film, but in fact what happens is relatively clear. 24.62.224.22 (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sorcerer_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1257772723"