Jump to content

Talk:Tamasha (2015 film)

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

Film premise issues

[edit]
@Airplaneman:. Dear, I know that it is copyright violation if the plot is published before the film release. But let me tell you that the premise has already been officially published by UTV Motion Pictures when the trailer was out. The description written is available with the trailer published on Youtube. Since using Youtube as a source isn't right, the source is indirectly used from Oye Times. If I'm wrong please, tell me or explain me. Arjann (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjann: WP:CV states that copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. I don't understand how copying a plot summary from a promotional trailer doesn't violate this unless the source is freely licensed. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Airplaneman ✈ 16:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Airplaneman:. Yes, I agree to the claim written in green. However, the trailer is published in public domain with video licensing policies, ofcourse, through official distribution handle of the film (UTV Motion Pictures). If you happen to visit the link just click show more. You may read a description which is the synopsis. I was well aware of WP:YT and did not link Youtube as the source but the same description was published by Oye Times, Canada. Not just this source but a well known Indian reliable source also meantion the same. You may read it here (Tamasha Synopsis) So, when the synopsis is already out whether it is read by a user from there or Tamasha's Wikipedia page, does it matter? Arjann (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjann: Arjann, sorry for giving you a hard time. I clearly don't understand video licensing policies. As I understand it, trailers are published in the public domain? In constructing my first response, I looked at the YouTube description. Unless I'm missing something, there's no mention of public domain licensing. At the bottom of the "glasham" page, it says "all rights reserved". On the bottom of the "Oye Times" page, it also says "republish with permission only". So I was just at a loss as to where to find proof of free licensing. Airplaneman ✈ 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is relevant here. Airplaneman ✈ 02:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Airplaneman: Hey... It is ok. You are not giving a hard time. I'm glad to learn things. Actually, a majority of reliable sources write "All rights reserved, republish with...." but you are right that the premise is exactly taken. It would be a case of republishing over here. Now, I feel either rephrasing the premise keeping the source intact or else remove the premise completely. What say? Arjann (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjann: Cool, I'm glad we both see the same thing now. It's generally discouraged to quote large sections of text without context (as in this case – where a whole section is a direct quotation). I agree that a premise is useful for an article. Summarizing the plot in original language.
I'll think out loud here… I honestly don't understand the premise, as it stands, so I'm not sure what's worth keeping (a lot of it is flowery language designed to promote the film). I really like the one-sentence summary in the lead that says, Tamasha tells the story of an individual who loses his self by living according to the social conventions expected of him. That's a good summary, I feel, and the current premise doesn't really add much. So I suppose if there is to be a premise/plot summary, it would be quite short, considering the current information we have. Airplaneman ✈ 14:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Airplaneman: Yes. There is much of flowery language used in the plot. Ok, I agree that we shouldn't keep it. I feel it complies to WP:QUESTIONED and WP:PLOTSUMNOT. If you have read reply, feel free to remove the premise or reply back and I'll remove it. :) :D Arjann (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjann: This sounds good to me. I'll leave the editing to you! Airplaneman ✈ 21:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this discussion is several weeks old and the copied prose is no longer in the article, but I need to make this clear since an editor just recently pasted copyrighted content. We may not copy content from other sources unless they are specifically licensed for us to do so, for instance with an appropriate Creative Commons license. The claims of the trailer being in the public domain is completely unfounded. "Available to the public" is not the same thing as "in the public domain", and all creative content including prose, video, music and photograhs, is considered copyrighted by default unless otherwise specified, or unless a certain number of years elapses and the copyright expires. There are certain exceptions for fair use. The fact that other sites are using the full text is irrelevant, since those sites may have specific arrangements with the film producers. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response summary removed

[edit]

There's obviously a dispute about the overall critical response as represented here, so I have removed the statement in this edit. One site's opinion doesn't make the summary a fact. That represents undue weight. In Western cinema we frequently find Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic at odds over critical response, and they use a more mathematical approach than then unnamed writer at Bollywood Hungama. What would be smarter is to organize reviews by the comments on acting, directing, writing, and pick balanced reviews that provide a neutral point of view. We're not here to sell movie tickets, and if that's what you're here to do, it isn't compatible with Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Sources

[edit]

KOIMOI cannot be used. Check the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_5#Reliable_Sources_and_our_resources Tweets from Taran Adarsh are usually available from Bollywood Hungama, so take them from there.-- Semanti Paul talk, 14:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flop and apparent disagreement over gross claim.

[edit]

Hi Krish!, re: this edit (which was a re-do of this edit), I don't think that as a rule we use "flop" in film articles, as it tends to skew our neutral point of view. Second topic: It is an objective piece of sourced information that the film was the 10th highest-grossing Hindi film. Now while I agree with you that it may erroneously suggest that the film was successful when it may not have been (I don't know or have an opinion about this) if the budget-to-gross ratio was such that the film was ultimately deemed unsuccessful despite bringing in such a high gross, that should be clarified, and should be properly sourced. Changing the statement to "flop" without context or sourcing doesn't help us, and it just looks like we're trading one exaggeration for another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some references to help?
All I'm generally proposing is something to the effect of "Though the film was the tenth highest-grossing Hindi film of the year, it was considered unsuccessful financially." Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In these edits, I removed the "flop" label applied by Krish! in this edit, which was a resubmission of this edit, which was a resubmission of this edit, and who knows how long this has been going on. 1) "Flop" is not the sort of terminology a neutral encyclopedia uses. Saying that film performed poorly at the box office is a fine way of expressing this sentiment without using hyperbole. Similar to how we wouldn't describe a film as "rotten" just because that's the phrasing Rotten Tomatoes uses. 2) Though I understand that saying the film was the "10th highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2015" without any context makes it sound like it was super-successful, removing this detail entirely doesn't make sense to me. There is a way to combine both ideas, which I attempted to do in the edit above. "The film grossed over ₹136 crore worldwide, making it the 10th highest grossing Bollywood film of 2015[6] but because of its high budget, it was considered a poor performer.[6]" Perhaps the language can be massaged a bit, but I think it's actually more eye-opening to point out that an Indian film can have a high gross and still be considered an underperformer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamasha_(2015_film)&oldid=1201002455"