Talk:Trumbo (2015 film)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Casting cruft
[edit]A litany of the dates on which each actor's casting was announced to the public does not have encyclopedic value. This kind of trade-rag gossip that so-and-so has been cast can be marginally informative in the early stages of a film's production, when complete casting info isn't available, but unless independent sources state that the order and timing of these casting agreements are significant, it's trivia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've already opened a discussion here, User:Koala15. Please follow your own demand and discuss before continuing your unilateral editing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this is indiscriminate detail. It is essentially proseline. I think we should keep the Cranston sentence and then consolidate the remaining casting sentences into something like, "The rest of the roles were cast from April 2014 onward," with all the references behind it. It should be followed by the sentence about filming. The sentence about Bleecker Street should be moved to "Release" section that is a matter of distribution. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Calling this content "trivial" or "cruft" is simply ridiculous. Everything there is relevant to the production. It could be presented better, but there is no reason to remove it. Koala15 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Cruft" is not the best word to use here because it is unnecessarily pejorative. It is more appropriate to classify the content as indiscriminate detail. That is subject to interpretation and should be based on consensus. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It is worth noting when the main role is cast, and other casting details when demonstrably pertinent, like being cast because of a previous role. A blow-by-blow account that merely states each person joining the cast is not necessary and can be summarized (if it has to be said at all). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Cruft is jargon for anything that is left over, redundant and getting in the way." There is no better word for this, and it is intentionally pejorative. The date on which some PR flack sent an e-mail to the trade rags and entertainment gossip shows that a particular role had been given to a certain actor, in an effort to drum up a flicker of publicity for the film in the 24/7 infotainment news cycle... is barely even news. It's recentist filler that can be tolerated in articles about movies that are still early in production, but only because we don't yet have complete cast lists or a clear sense of which roles are important to the film. It has no lasting encyclopedic value. I can't imagine why it would be important to note that the role of A was cast 24 days before the role of B, which was 39 days before C was cast, etc. And if it was important, then we should find a source that says so and explains why, rather than cluttering the article with a tedious litany of dates that seems to imply some hidden point for the reader to figure out. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- JasonAQuest, better words can be used. WP:FANCRUFT says, "Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Per WP:CIVIL, we need to participate in a respectful and considerate way. All of us here mean well in contributing to this encyclopedia, and we won't always agree. We have to find a consensus through discussion. Regarding casting details, I agree that the current presentation is too indiscriminate. What do you think of mentioning when Cranston joined, and summarizing that the rest of cast joined before the start of filming? Perhaps mentioning the two that were cast after filming started? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Cruft is jargon for anything that is left over, redundant and getting in the way." There is no better word for this, and it is intentionally pejorative. The date on which some PR flack sent an e-mail to the trade rags and entertainment gossip shows that a particular role had been given to a certain actor, in an effort to drum up a flicker of publicity for the film in the 24/7 infotainment news cycle... is barely even news. It's recentist filler that can be tolerated in articles about movies that are still early in production, but only because we don't yet have complete cast lists or a clear sense of which roles are important to the film. It has no lasting encyclopedic value. I can't imagine why it would be important to note that the role of A was cast 24 days before the role of B, which was 39 days before C was cast, etc. And if it was important, then we should find a source that says so and explains why, rather than cluttering the article with a tedious litany of dates that seems to imply some hidden point for the reader to figure out. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Cruft" is not the best word to use here because it is unnecessarily pejorative. It is more appropriate to classify the content as indiscriminate detail. That is subject to interpretation and should be based on consensus. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It is worth noting when the main role is cast, and other casting details when demonstrably pertinent, like being cast because of a previous role. A blow-by-blow account that merely states each person joining the cast is not necessary and can be summarized (if it has to be said at all). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Calling this content "trivial" or "cruft" is simply ridiculous. Everything there is relevant to the production. It could be presented better, but there is no reason to remove it. Koala15 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this is indiscriminate detail. It is essentially proseline. I think we should keep the Cranston sentence and then consolidate the remaining casting sentences into something like, "The rest of the roles were cast from April 2014 onward," with all the references behind it. It should be followed by the sentence about filming. The sentence about Bleecker Street should be moved to "Release" section that is a matter of distribution. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hollywood Reporter
[edit]This is apparently a press kit or special section of the Hollywood Reporter with a lot of detail about the film and its historical background.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/trumbo-hollywood-ten/
Blacklisted: The Inside Story of Dalton Trumbo and the Hollywood Ten
When the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed filmmakers to testify about Communism in the industry, ten men held their ground — and for a time, lost their livelihood.
November 16, 2015
--Nbauman (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Robinson inaccuracy
[edit]This submission was reverted by User:Koala15, who claims that the inaccuracy is irrelevant because this is a "fiction" movie. In fact, the film purports to be a reasonably accurate depiction of true events, within the confines of drama. That the film rather egregiously and pointedly states a falsehood about the real actions of a real person it depicts, and that the facts of the case are notably evident in the citations I presented, is not only extremely pertinent to a film claiming historical validity as this one does, but is also well within the standards on scores of other Wikipedia articles on various films. There is no justification I can see for excluding the Robinson material, especially since it is cited and the claim that the film is "fictional" is indefensible and, frankly, rather disingenuous. The film's own legal disclaimer, incidentally, states that the film features actual historical events and characters, though some fictional composites have been created. The fact that Edward G. Robinson is not one of those fictional creations in a film purporting to be a dramatic treatment of actual events is supremely worthy of mention when the film depicts him in a way completely and verifiably contrary to fact. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong agree. Was surprised the info was deleted for such a flimsy reason. Sir Rhosis (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Monkeyzpop, I agree that blatant inaccuracies about a real person should be mentioned, but how should it be done? OR is not allowed, and content must be verifiable. Two sources are provided:
- Ross, Steven J. Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics, Oxford University Press, 2011
- Testimony of Edward G. Robinson before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, April, 1952. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952
- The second is a primary source, so it's OR to use it, except as a backup for a secondary source which mentions it. The first one is a book, so we need to verify that it really mentions this inaccuracy. Where in the book (page) does it do so, and what are the exact words? For convenience, here's a searchable source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was appalled by that inaccuracy when I saw the film, but I'm not clear as to whether pointing it out is either necessary or appropriate per WP:SYN. Not saying it doesn't belong but I am dubious. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Right now my feeling is that it should be left in. I noticed that Variety repeated that inaccuracy. If necessary we ought to just do it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just came to this article and read the inaccuracy section. Whatever the inaccuracy may be, the section as it is now is confusing. I still don't know what the inaccuracy claimed actually is. Did he name names and the film said he didn't, or vice-versa. It needs to be clarified in the article.Airproofing (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Robinson did indeed MENTION names of people he met at various social and political meetings, including that of Trumbo. The transcript of his testimony makes clear that he did NOT name those people as communists. In the film, he is depicted as doing precisely that.Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I just came to this article and read the inaccuracy section. Whatever the inaccuracy may be, the section as it is now is confusing. I still don't know what the inaccuracy claimed actually is. Did he name names and the film said he didn't, or vice-versa. It needs to be clarified in the article.Airproofing (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Stalinism
[edit]I'd like to add: Some reviewers have suggested that the film fails to show Trumbo's allegiance to Stalinism.
References:
http://nypost.com/2015/11/05/trumbo-is-a-whitewash-of-an-unrepentant-hollywood-commie/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427002/Trumbo-movie-review
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/11/30/film-the-legend/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/06/dalton_trumbo_had_it_coming_128652.html#!
If these someone thinks these sources are inadequate please tell me why.69.127.248.215 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any more reliable sources which document this in the context of the movie? Although partisan websites aren't totally forbidden, we should be careful because American (not European) right wing sources tend to not know the difference between a socialist, a communist, and a Stalinist. Anything left of center tends to get painted with the same brush.
- Does the Dalton Trumbo article deal with this? That might be good place to find sources which document it, and then find sources which mention it in the context of the film. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed the wording and added sources.69.127.248.215 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you didn't see my comment above before you edited. While being "bold" can be a good thing, we edit collaboratively here, and when possible objections are known, or a discussion is in progress, we try to iron out any potential problems before making bold edits. That prevents suffering the indignity of having our bold edits reverted. I'll take another look at your edits and leave edit summaries for each of my edits. If you dispute them, then, instead of edit warring, follow WP:BRD and discuss it here so we can reach a consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Right off the bat, the two sources were written long before the movie, so they are obviously not suitable here. TheBlaze is also written before, and is merely an extreme polemic about Trumbo. Since TheBlaze is not known for fact checking, it's not a RS for anything but its own opinion, and mostly only for its own article. It's on the extreme right wing with a very small and extreme audience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The three remaining sources, while also being on the far right (and that alone should not be grounds for excluding a source, be it right or left), are a bit more credible, even though their credibility suffers by using hindsight to judge Trumbo, and trying to force the filmmaker to make the same error. (At the time, things were not so clear, and history has soundly judged the McCarthy era and the HUAC's activities to be an unamerican persecution and trampling of the rights of citizens. Democracy demands that both the right and left are allowed to exist and advocate their views, and the HUAC was against that idea.) At least the reviewers don't hide their biases or logical fallacies, so I'll let others judge the fate of those sources. Criticism is allowed and necessary per NPOV, even if it's misguided, and that determination is obviously a POV!
-- BullRangifer (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The three remaining sources, while also being on the far right (and that alone should not be grounds for excluding a source, be it right or left), are a bit more credible, even though their credibility suffers by using hindsight to judge Trumbo, and trying to force the filmmaker to make the same error. (At the time, things were not so clear, and history has soundly judged the McCarthy era and the HUAC's activities to be an unamerican persecution and trampling of the rights of citizens. Democracy demands that both the right and left are allowed to exist and advocate their views, and the HUAC was against that idea.) At least the reviewers don't hide their biases or logical fallacies, so I'll let others judge the fate of those sources. Criticism is allowed and necessary per NPOV, even if it's misguided, and that determination is obviously a POV!
- Right off the bat, the two sources were written long before the movie, so they are obviously not suitable here. TheBlaze is also written before, and is merely an extreme polemic about Trumbo. Since TheBlaze is not known for fact checking, it's not a RS for anything but its own opinion, and mostly only for its own article. It's on the extreme right wing with a very small and extreme audience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Koala if you have objections please explain them before you delete my addition.69.127.248.215 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Incredible that after 26 years of the Berlin's wall fall, still "Communism" is demonized as if and ideology about worker's rights can be the explanation of barbaric acts of dictators like Stalin. A few years ago I was called "Cuban agent" just because I was publishing links of the NSA disclosing sabotage and terrorism missions of the USA against Cuba. And that was here in our Wikipedia. What a shame! Asierra (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Political commentary section
[edit](edit conflict) I think it is worth having a "Political commentary" section that is separate from the traditional critics' reviews. Such a section can combine different statements from just various political commentators (and apply WP:NPOV as needed). WP:BIASED shows that such sources can be used; just need to apply in-text attribution. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Erik, that's definitely an interesting idea. We do need to stay on topic and not allow such a section to be a WP:Coatrack, so it must still focus on the film, and must differ from such content on the Dalton Trumbo article. Can you provide some examples of such content? This really does sound like potentially good content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- America: Imagine the World Without Her is an example. While it has tags, I don't think they are warranted but do not care enough to remove them. It combines commentary from a variety of sources, both liberal and conservative and in the middle. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like a legitimate type of content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The situation isn't exactly analogous, however: the one is a documentary and the other is a docudrama with all the "truthiness" that entails. That it doesn't conform to the facts is pretty much a given, and it isn't particularly noteworthy that critics of Dalton Trumbo object that he is presented too sympathetically. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Noteworthiness" should be based on the breadth of reliable sources, not one's personal take. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The situation isn't exactly analogous, however: the one is a documentary and the other is a docudrama with all the "truthiness" that entails. That it doesn't conform to the facts is pretty much a given, and it isn't particularly noteworthy that critics of Dalton Trumbo object that he is presented too sympathetically. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like a legitimate type of content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- America: Imagine the World Without Her is an example. While it has tags, I don't think they are warranted but do not care enough to remove them. It combines commentary from a variety of sources, both liberal and conservative and in the middle. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)