Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Note on typography section

The "Note on typography" section seems somewhat silly. Although I understand the grammatical rules discussed, its much too involved for the size of this article, and is rather overly involved for such a trivial grammatical matter, I'm not particularly well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines, however, such a section does seem to be overly exacting, reduce the readability of the article, and may even confuse readers ("Roman text" is somewhat obscure). If nobody objects, I will remove it, along with the note at the top. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

This article continues to be deleted, with the editor citing the impressive sounding acronym WP:FUTFILM.

WP:FUTFILM is Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films, an article created 24 October 2007, which has only been edited by four editors.

I have added the appropriate {{essay}} tag to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films.

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films is only an essay, and editors can "Heed them or not at your own discretion." I strongly suggest the WP:FUTFILM editors, who are so eager to impose their own views by delete other editors work, put this article up for deletion and let the community decide whether it should be deleted. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to add an "essay" tag to justify creating your own article for a film that might not happen. Alientraveller (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Number one, WP:FUTFILM is not a policy or guideline, it is an essay written by four people, one of those four is yourself. I did not create this article, I only added references to an existing article, which several people have written over a year and a half, and which you redirected with no discussion. You state that "[this] film that might not happen" yet provide no references for your unsourced opinion. On the other hand, I have provided sourced references that the movie will happen, in articles as late as this month. Why do you spend so much time deleting other people's hard work? Inclusionist (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Inclusionist. Alientraveller should be citing WP:NFF, in which an article should not exist yet if the film has not begun production. WP:FUTFILM just suggests steps to find a home for some content in an article with a broader scope, so we should all be happy to have these steps. :) Is there no way to expand the section this redirects to until filming begins? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Erik, two of the four editors of WP:FUTFILM are now involved in this discussion. (more) Inclusionist (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The project pages may only have been actively edited by a small number of editors, but it's very clear that WP:NFF has the consensus agreement of the community through the sheer number of editors who cite it in AfD discussions and the like, and the number of administrators who close said deletion discussions per it. The guideline doesn't exist to ruin anyone's hard work. It exists for very good, practical reasons. The guideline prevents the creation of film articles the instant a project is announced in Variety or wherever, because experience has shown us that the intention to make a film often does not mean a film will be made. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can always get in the way of filmmaker's intentions, and without the guideline, the place would be full of stubby articles about films that were never made. Now, sometimes films that are more likely to be made than not, such as Dawn Treader, are caught up in this, but if we made an exception for these then that would only render the guideline toothless for all the Jurassic Park IV's out there (a film that was supposed to have been made in 2005). No-one's saying the available information can't be included; it's just the best place for it right now is at a parent article. Steve ^{T • C} 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify this edit summary: "this page exceeds Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films why not focus contribuign contnt?" I am not sure what you mean by "exceeds". I do enjoy working on contributing content for future films, but I am not as hard-pressed if the film is not a sure thing. Some examples of projects that have dragged their legs include Shantaram (film) and The Wheelman (film). Also, can we move past WP:FUTFILM? As it has been said, WP:NFF is the better one to cite here. WP:FUTFILM just suggests a better handling of the content. I saw your message at WT:AFD about userfying AFDs. That's the kind of thing this page suggests, but it's mostly procedural and not consensus-driven. The specific action taken would be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

This image is not the real poster! It was made by a fan, so don't keep it on this Wikipedia article! 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.24.80 (talk)

Objection your honor: Although the image was indeed snagged from a fan site, the fansite cited the image from Walden Media's own website. I checked it out, and they have a logo. You can check it out for yourself. [[1]] -Danrvrs

Unreliable sources

This posting on a fan web site is claimed to be an excerpt from an article from The Times of Malta, sent via electronic mail to the web site by a fan who doesn't give xyr real name. I've checked the Times of Malta archives for 2007-02-02 to 2007-02-04 and can find no such article. Uncle G 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC) "The new and dangerous quest takes them to the farthest edge of the Eastern world on board the mighty Dawn Treader." MIGHTY? It's about the size of tha Santa Maria, afaik. 162.93.249.11 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition of 2 Pevensies and White Witch

As it is now confirmed Peter and Susan make an appearance somehow in the film, as does the white witch, how should we add them in the article, in the cast list I am adding them as I see fit (pinning them as other), but if anybody has another suggestion then please feel free to change it. Appropriate references will be submited so you know I am not making it up =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancraigboyes (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Teaser Trailer?

Is the teaser trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader not released yet? (In this case, I think?) Formula 86 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Be very quiet! The trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be attached to Toy Story 3 on June 18, 2010. It will be released online a day before. 68.191.69.187 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Puffery?

Where did the last sentence in the Plot section come from? "Only an entirely uncharted journey to Aslan's Country - a voyage of destiny and transformation for each of those aboard the Dawn Treader - can save Narnia, and all the astonishing creatures in it, from an unfathomable fate." I can (barely) stomach "voyage of destiny and transformation", but "save Narnia"? "from an unfathomable fate"? -- Elphion (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That sentence comes from one of the official plot synopsis's provided by Walden Media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.28.109 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it's marketing hype that can safely be deleted? -- Elphion (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

3D?

The article doesn't seem to say one way or the other whether it was film in 3D or if it was filmed in 2D and is being converted. Does anyone know which way they're doing it? My guess is it's being converted because it was filmed last year before the "3D craze". For An Angel (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) It is being converted. Was on several news sites and fan sites.(Dylancraigboyes (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Trailer

Is there some reason *not* to link unambiguously to (or even to mention) the trailer? -- Elphion (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason. The trailer is contained in many external links and in a few months, the trailer won't be notable unless made controversial for some reason. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now two treailers are mentioned but the same link is given for both:
http://www.narniaweb.com/2010/06/the-voyage-of-the-dawn-treader-trailer-is-here
-- Elphion (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of "Film" to the page name

I have run into a little confusion with links to the book and the movie. I find it reasonable that the appellation: (film) should be added to the name of the entire page.

It would thus read: The Chronicles of Narnia : The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (film).

This would help with links, as there are two pages with the exact same name and Wikipedia is only linking to the book page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by King Clawson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to put Liliandil?

Anon IP 162.83.111.93 wants to move Lilliandil from "Other" to "Main Protagonists" (or possibly "Narnians"). I've undone this for now, as "other" is more accurate than any of the alternatives (she's not a Narnian, and she certainly isn't a main protagonist in the books -- and I've seen nothing indicating that she will be in the film). She belongs wherever Ramandu goes, but he hasn't been listed. I really don't care where she goes, but if you move her, please keep the additional information and reference about her name. -- Elphion (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Neil Young as Dufflepud 2? Really?

I somehow doubt that Neil Young, singer-songwriter, is the one in a bit part in this film. The citation points to an IMDb page - side note: IMDb is not a reliable source; it can be changed by anyone - anyway, there are no acting credits listed on the article about Neil Young, the singer. There is no Neil Young (actor) listed in Neil Young (disambiguation). Would it be safe enough to de-link this actor, or perhaps to redlink it in the hope of a future article on someone who may or may not be notable? Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Dufflepud 2 even a principal character? If not, then particularly if the actor is non-notable I'd remove the item entirely. Failing that, a de-linking would appear to be in order. Doniago (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

References need work to conform to WP:RS and WP:V

I added the {{Refimprove}} template to this article. Currently there are plenty of citations, but a lot of them reference some unreliable sources. Please read WP:V for Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. WP:RS explains what a reliable source is. Some examples of non-reliable sources are: Fansites, such as NarniaWeb.com; IMDb - it can be changed by anyone; blogs - not from a reputable publisher (exceptions include The Washington Post blog, etc.) Improving the article is going to take some work. We need to excise the unreliable sources and replace them with verifiable, reliable sources. This can include, in some cases, the primary source - the book and film. Therefore, when the film comes out, if someone mentions Edmund's age, then that can be used as a citation, and it should be used, especially if it should happen to contradict the book. In the absence of mentions from the film, we can use the book. Ideally, secondary sources should be used, so if a critical review in a major newspaper mentions their ages, or of course other details that are included in the article, let's prefer that review and cite it. There are several templates in the {{Cite web}} family such as {{Cite news}} and {{Cite book}} that can be used to make the best citations. I have provided some examples in the article. If you choose not to manually create these templates, they can be automatically created by a bot or tool program such as Reflinks. Thanks for your time and effort improving this article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and if anyone has a copy of the original book, or the Companion to Narnia reference by Paul F. Ford, please consult it for the character ages. They are the most contentious data points currently. Then cite the book, and remove the citations with this link to NarniaWeb. Most of the entries in the referenced NarniaWeb page were drawn from the Companion to Narnia timeline. Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on converting the refs at the moment. I figure it will be best to do that, then go through the unreliable sources later. Hope this helps.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Studio and distributor

Recently a lot of edits have been changing the studio and distributor fields in the infobox. I do not know the whole story on this, so I can't judge whether to revert. Does anyone know how to find out the studio and distributor of a film, particularly this film, and is there a way we can cite it from a reliable source that is verifiable? If reliable sources are not given for further edits to these fields I will make reverts, right or wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed, reading the article - duh - that the studio and distributor are mentioned in the lead paragraph. And they agree with what's now in the infobox. Let's keep it that way. Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced studio and distro info removed on 20101201 by deleted user. Edit Centric (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

iPhone game non-existent?

I've checked the Apple App Store and the Gameloft websites. There is no mention of an iPhone game for Dawn Treader and if it is in the works, it hasn't been released yet. However, it appears to be available on other types of phones. Someone correct this? Exohuman (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Differences between film and book

• I'm surprised someone hasnt created a section describing differences between the film and the book yet. Im not always a fan of these sections, as they often list trivial details, but there are some major differences which deserve highlighting.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.136.242 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I added that section, someone deleted it, I just now restored it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Someone tagged this section as "trivia" and "no references".
  1. Major differences between book and film are common in many films made from books, and to a fan of that book's fictional world such differences are often a serious relevant matter. Again, one man's cruft is another man's important relevant matter.
  2. The references are the book and the film.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:FANCRUFT and MOS:FILM#Adaptation_from_source_material. BOVINEBOY2008 09:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If it can be written in a prose-like format with (hopefully) some commentary on why things were changed, I think it is a great thing to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but we need more about why things are changed, ie real world facts. Otherwise, it is a list of trivia with no sources and no value unless you have some understanding of both the film and the book. BOVINEBOY2008 11:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is the disputed text:
  • Voyage events between leaving Narnia and picking up the three not stated.
  • Dufflepud Island is put before Dragon Island. Koriakin made the Dufflepuds invisible to hide them from the Darkness.
  • No Deathwater Island; the water pool that turns to gold is in a cave on Dragon Island. No Burnt Island.
  • In the book Dragon Island is well forested and has many wild goats and wild swine. In the film it is volcanic and barren.
  • The old dragon is not shown.
  • Eustace as dragon flies to Ramandu's Island and there is turned back to human.
  • The Dark Island is enlarged to a major widespread power of Darkness.
  • Ramandu's Island has a high sea-cliff and is not flat.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have found this which is helpful in sourcing. In the comments at the bottom, an Apted interview with Reuters sounds very promising to get the director's viewpoint, which makes this section eminently addable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  ...bingo Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I then added this version, but someone summarily deleted it:
  • As often, there are differences between the book and the film. In the film the Island of Darkness has been enlarged into a big spreading Dark Power, and the seven magic swords of the seven Lords added, to tie several events together; the story in the book is rather episodic and made of several semi-independent segments. That needed Dufflepud Island to be put before Dragon Island, so that Koriakin could tell the group about the Seven Swords. The dragon was kept in the story longer, so he could take a major part in the action and not merely expedition work duty as in the book.
  • The book's stream of consciousness description about Eustace gradually realizing that he had become a dragon while sleeping, is effective as a text story but cannot easily be changed into film matter, so it had to go.
  • There are geographical changes: in the book Dragon Island is well forested and has many wild goats and wild swine, and Ramandu's Island is flat. In the film Dragon Island is volcanic and barren and the first seen of Ramandu's Island is a high cliff.
    • The reference is http://www.cinemablend.com/new/10-Big-Differences-Between-Narnia-Voyage-Of-The-Dawn-Treader-Book-And-Movie-22165.html "10 Big Differences Between Narnia: Voyage Of The Dawn Treader Book And Movie".

    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good source Anthony, go ahead and restore it with the source, of course. BOVINEBOY2008 13:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Already done. The Apted material is good at giving an overall sense on what the filmakers changed and why, but lacks detail. I am sure there will be more discussion aroiund the place...funny, the bit in the book where Eustace peels the dragon skin off I remember really well come to think of it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Silver Chair

I've removed this from the "followed by" section of the infobox because there has been no announcement that this film will ever be made. Walden Media and 20th Century Fox merely hold an option to make the film, but that does not mean that they will - particularly if Dawn Treader flops. 88.104.23.145 (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And IMDB is not a valid source to say it will be because it can be edited by the public much like Wikipedia.88.110.250.80 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be kept out unless a reliable source publishes it has been greenlighted. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

plot

the plot section is full of mis-information and grammatical errors

the Narnians subsection in the characters section includes many characters that aren't Narnian. The Dawn Treader crew listed in the Dawn Treader subsection are almost all Narnians (except the kids from this world) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Budget and costs details

I have amended the infobox to show that the film's final production budget was £155 million. This information is sufficiently sourced and should remain in place. The earlier reported budget of $140m was the provisional amount before the film went into production, and before they decided to convert the film to 3D which would be partly responsible for the extra costs. I have no problem if editors wish to state in the article the difference between the provisional and final budgets, but the final budget should remain in the infobox as that is what was officially spent. Furthermore, the production budget does not include marketing costs and the article should make this clear. 88.110.248.232 (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal reference includes a statement by the film's producer stating that the cost of the film was $140 million: . Box Office Mojo and the LA Times put the cost at $155 million but it is not clear where they get this information from. The source for the revised amount is not clear, or why there is a discrepency. The film's producer should clearly know how much the film costs and the Wall Street Journal is the only source that includes a statement by the producer, so is the preferred source. It is probable that the extra $15 million came from the 3-D conversion, but generally 3-D conversion costs aren't included in the production budget and we can't say that without clarification anyway. The officially given figure should take precedence over any estimates, and this article should follow the lead of the Avatar (2009 film) article where the official figure goes in the infobox and all other estimates are added into prose of the production section.

Betty Logan (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's film infobox template guidelines state that preferred sources for film budget information are Box Office Mojo and The Numbers.com as they usually get their information from reputable sources such as Variety or the L.A. Times. The Numbers does not give a budget for "Voyage" but BOM does, as does a source directly from the L.A. Times itself - both of which were quoted as $155m - and it is these sources that are preferable over the one source that you are using (I say one source because they both quote the same interview and the Reuters source is merely reiterating the Wall Street Journal source). An interview in the Wall Street Journal where one of the the Narnia producers claimed the film stayed on budget is not an entirely neutral source to use as it is the producer's own claim, and it is also extremely unlikely since they converted to 3D after production had started which does indeed add more to production costs. Almost every big budget film goes a bit overbudget because of the logistics involved. Even the Wall Street Journal interview seem to be wary of it - instead of just stating it was made for $140m, they stated "Mr Johnson said the film was made for $140m". Furthermore Betty, you have breached the 3RR policy. Kookoo Star (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect in stating I have breached 3RR. Second of all, the Infobox guidleines do not say Box Office Mojo is preferred. They give them as an example of where such figures can be sourced from, and state that mainstream websites are preferred to cite a figure. Clearly an interview with the produce in the Wall Street Journal is not an inferior source to Box Office Mojo or the LA TImes, which does not state where it gets its information. Betty Logan (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously if we can use the examples stated in the infobox guidelines, then that would be preferable to anything else. Neutral figures gained from Box Office Mojo and the L.A. Times are going to be preferable over a non-neutral interview from another newspaper. And although it is not an inferior source, the Wall Street Journal does not make the claim about the film's budget itself, it merely says the producer they interviewed said it (and producers are always reluctant to admit their film went overbudget, especially for a particularly risky venture like this film, so he's hardly impartial). It is ridiculous to even assume that they brought the film in on the $140m provisional budget that was announced in early 2009 - especially after they decided to convert to 3D afterwards. It's fine to mention the difference between the provisional and final reported budget figures in the article, but the infobox should reflect the most up-to-date and well sourced amount (which would be the $155m figure). 88.110.246.79 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I support a budget range of 140-155 million, finding all these sources to be reliable. Unless the discrepancy is clearly explained in another reliable source, we should not attempt to extrapolate reasons for it. We're in the ballpark here at least, and I've read a few articles saying that the film was cheaper than its predecessor, which was over $200 million. Neither figure confounds that coverage. It's not about being precise, but about giving readers a pretty good idea about how much the film cost. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Erik here. If they are all reliable sources, then we shouldn't cherry pick which ones we want to report. (Also, I would dispute the assertion that BOM collects its figures from reliable sources. There have been times—in particular for pre-internet films—where there's no substantiated backing for the budget figures BOM reports, even scouting trade journals and the like. Take it with a grain of salt if we don't know where the content is explicitly coming from.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

If Rotten Tomatoes is rather split on the reviews, why do the ones quoted in the article generally seem to be positive? I think that section needs more balance. John Smith's (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid concern. RT indicates that reviews are pretty much split, so the sampling of the reviews should be a 50/50 split. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

country of origin

it says that the film is British/American, but the film was filmed on the Gold Coast, Australia. What (if any) are Wikipedia's rules for the nationality of films? The location? the nationality of the actors? or the director? or the nobody film crew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality guidelines for the infobox can be found at Template:Infobox film (under country). In short, the nationality needs to be identified through a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Plan to work on cast list

I have just read WP:FILMCAST and I have several ideas about how to proceed with rewriting this article's cast section to comply. If there are no reasonable objections, I plan to cut out extraneous character descriptions and non-notable cast members, as well as rewrite each section into a prose paragraph, rather than the list currently presented. Feel free to discuss it here, as I wanted to achieve consensus for a substantial change. Elizium23 (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Another name

Yes, it is original research to link "another name" to Jesus Christ; however, it is a fairly well-known fact that this is exactly what Lewis meant. Perhaps we can source this to Companion to Narnia or similar and leave it in? Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Companion to Narnia but I think ideally the source should be one that addresses this part of the film specifically, rather than a source that's discussing the book (since there are differences between the books and films).

Also, I might recommend that this point be raised outside of the Plot section, as there's nothing explicitly in the plot to link "another name" to JC and plot summaries are really supposed to only focus on what is directly observable during the film. Doniago (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)