Talk:The Fall (2006 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Fall (2006 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: British / Indian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Reception

The reception section is far too positive. It gives the impression that this film is actually watchable. Is there anything we can do to balance it out a bit? 71.200.54.96 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a film person, I found the The Fall very watchable. In fact, it was one of the most visually stimulating films I've ever seen. Perhaps broadening your horizons to what makes a film 'watchable' might 'balance' out your experiences with film. Hopefully, my statement will at least allow you to realize there are various groups of people who watch films for many differing formal elements. Assume good faith, ~~shit for brains~~.

What was the budget? --69.234.190.78 (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...this is not the place to discuss the movie, only the content of the article. :D Green451 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria is a little girl who speaks poor English (she seems to be a Russian immigrant) russian? are you kidding me ?? shes a Romanian imigrant. ROMANIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.186.135 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baraka

Why is there a link to the film Baraka in this article? As far as I can tell, there is no connection between the two. I checked out the Wikipedia articles on Tarsem Singh as well as on Baraka, and I find no evidence of a link.

Unless somebody can explain, it probably makes sense to delete the link, eh? Thuvan Dihn (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation will be clear when you watch this clip from The Fall and this clip from Baraka. I am quite sure that is why someone inserted the link. However, in evading WP:Verifiability, this creates confusion. Even before I saw your post, I was thinking that people would be wondering, "Why is that there?" It should be removed unless someone finds a reliable source stating the influence of or allusion to Baraka. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the two films have a similar scene (one scene in the whole film) doesn't seem to warrant the link. 114.76.127.194 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more general link is the use of spectacular natural and historical locations. This seems to be a major feature of the film, shouldn't it be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? Then the link to Baraka could be mentioned there. 91.107.215.14 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has several scenes that are direct allusions to baraka 71.96.68.185 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting to move this film article from The Fall (2006 film) to The Fall (2008 film) because per WP:NCF, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release." This film toured film festivals in 2006 and 2007, but it was not available to the public until 2008. Thus it is best treated as a 2008 film. As we can see from the article, several critics have considered it one of the best of 2008. Thoughts on this move? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Joecashfire (talk · contribs) undid the move from The Fall (2006 film) to The Fall (2008 film). I tried to contact him for an answer, but he has not responded. Nevertheless, the move was fully justified because per WP:NCF, the year of the film should be the year of its first public release. The Fall screened in a few film festivals in 2006 and 2007, but these are not open to the public, so these do not count. Its first public release was in 2008. This is further evidenced by the "Reception" section of the article, which shows critics identifying it as one of the best films of 2008. I would like to restore the move. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Being played at film festivals do not count as releases. The film was not actually released until 2008 (I think the 2006 date should be removed from the infobox). TJ Spyke 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, especially in light of the unilateral and unexplained move. Erik's reasons are sound and in accordance with our naming conventions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons above. Should not have been moved back. PC78 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move three

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall (2008 film) → The Fall (2006 film) —Based on the comments below I have reopened the proposed move. Especially in light of the fact that there is now a 2008 film also entitled The Fall as can be seen here The Fall (film) and here [1]. MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall (2008 film) → The Fall (2006 film) —

The first line of the article reads "The Fall is a 2006 film by Tarsem Singh...". Which is, according to common sense, perfectly correct, since the film was finished in 2006. Why was it moved to 2008? I personally don't understand the rule that year of the film should be the year of its first public release. It's like you put in your birth certificate the year when your mother first showed you to "the public". Stansult (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright date on the film is 2006 that should be case closed since that is the most reliable source that there is. As to the reasoning used above since when is "the public" restricted from going to film festivals. Could we please have a reliable source showing that "the public has never been allowed into a film festival. Shoot I can even remember going to a few over the years. Many members of "the public" saw it in 2006 and that is the year of its release. There will be no better example than this that Wikipedia's unreliable nature (Four editors [all of whom I respect by the way] hardly make for a consensus) is as bad if not worse than Imdb. MarnetteD | Talk 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The release year used for disambiguation is not tied to the year of the copyright. There are films that are made but are not released until years later. We use a "public release" threshold because a film is finally in the public eye. When it appears at film festivals, there is very limited attention to it. To use a more current example, The Hurt Locker was released at a festival in 2008, but today, we are seeing it as one of the best films of 2009 because of its public release in that year. The Fall appears on the top ten of critics' list in 2008, as seen here. IMDb only has the release year for the first screening anywhere of that film. For example, 300 is labeled as "2006" because of a brief screening before it really was introduced to the public in March 2007. Erik (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about films that are for one reason or another never released "publicly"? Such works may still be available to the public. I understand the need to standardize the year associated with films, but in certain cases (such as this) it really only serves to confuse the reader. This is doubly so since the article points out that a genuine "The Fall (2008)" exists, though it has no article: "It should not be confused with another 2008 release of the same title, a legal drama by John Krueger." I think this is a pretty good example of a case for WP:IAR and that "The Fall (2006)" would be more appropriate. Ian Burnet (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous debate. If this film had been completed in 2006 and not shown at all until 2008, that would be a legitimate basis for saying that it is a 2008 film. Even if most of the people saw it in 2008 and all of the cited articles are from 2008, people _publicly_ saw it in 2006, and I guarantee there were reviews associated with the festival release. I am anonymous and don't care to make an account, but it seems blindingly obvious that there are two options: 1) move it to The Fall (2006 Film), 2) provide a lengthy and inane description of why a handful of people insist on using a convention that is awkward, confusing, and misleading (including the fact that the film was released in 2006 and that all other websites and conventions refer to it as a 2006 film). Why did this article actually leave me needing to go to other independent sources to find out when this movie was made and verify its identity? Please, for the love of clarity, MOVE IT. Note this item was added by IP 78.52.68.105 on June 17th 2010.

Support per the statment above and the other film from 2008 with the same name. MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The naming guideline wording was agreed upon by four editor last year: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive 1#Disambiguating by release year. I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Disambiguation by release year. Fences&Windows 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Production section could be expanded a bit more

There can be some more information in the film's production added to this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fall (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090102205252/http://www.metacritic.com:80/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml to http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical release

I was confused how such a good movie bombed as hard as this one did, but then I attended a Q&A with the director and I believe he stated that the movie only opened at 16 theaters. I think this information would be highly relevant to explaining its performance at the box office. I’m guessing I wouldn’t be able to just cite the Q&A session so I’d like to know how to go about confirming this to Wikipedia’s standards before citing it in the article. 2600:1000:B192:9AC4:79A3:6629:B54C:BACC (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]