Jump to content

Talk:W.E./Archive 1

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

Nice job

Nice job on the topic so far! I hope the good work is kept up. I am wondering, could a synopsis be provided somewhere in the article? It was not immediately clear to me what the film is about. We could explain briefly in the lead section or a separate "Synopsis" section (that usually becomes "Plot" later). Whichever works better! Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I made a plot section with 2 little sentences refering to the plot description in the press release. When the film has actually been seen by someone, this can be expanded. -Bisco (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

W.E. (film) → W.E — Request to indicate correct spelling of Name / Film Title, i.e., "W.E" (removing the period after the "E" Wikimaritan (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are mistaken - see the official "W.E" Press Release Chaosdruid (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose but suggest move to W.E (film) - The press release and IMDb don't have the period after the E (though that doesn't make sense in my eyes). The disambig (film) should remain so that it will be found easier, see the clutter at We (disambiguation). -Bisco (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, should be moved to W.E (film), as per Bisco. Can the proposer amend the move proposal? If they did I would Support.
@Bisco - I suspect that the title is trying to emulate the cypher used by the original two, to reflect the joining of the two couples. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
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.

Daily Mail review.

It seems a bit of a shame to tarnish this page before any proper reviews or indeed, the release of the actual movie, with a review from the Daily Mail which is in fact a review of supposed reviews, rather than an actual review. It is all hearsay, and just because it is printed in ink surely doesn't justify it being printed here? If that were the case any piece of inaccurate and bitter information about anything could be added to any article on Wiki. The Mail are notorious Madonna-haters, and to be frank, it is on a par with including a review by the KKK for a single by NWA. If their actual review after they have seen the movie is still negative, then perhaps it should be included with other reviews, but to include it now, whilst ignoring all the other positive comments that have been made about the film seems unfair. It could at least be a little bit balanced by maybe mentioning that they also claim from their 'sources' that the film looks stylish and that the lead actress could be up for an oscar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.173.200 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article isn't reviewing the film. Its talking about a negatively received initial screening. There's a huuuuuuuge difference. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the Daily mail are hardly a fair publication to use when using only ONE publication to assess the reception of this film. AND if one is adamant that they want to include what the Daily mail are stating, perhaps they could also include the bits where their *supposed* sources are also claiming that the lead actress has put in an oscar winning performance and that the film has been very stylishly filmed. Bearing in mind the Daily Mail weren't at the actual test-screening, perhaps it might also only be worth considering their article for inclusion if they can provide sources and references for their article which is more than likely highly inaccurate. Tabloids are hardly accurate sources, and if they can't name their sources then surely it is just gossip. Basically there is negativity and positivity in there article, and it seems rather unfair to include the negativity on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.77.53 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, no doubt because it was pure Daily Fail shit. Here's a positive one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2032438/W-E-review-Madonna-makes-fall-love-Mrs-Simpson.html.
I can't excuse the language of the anonymous, unsigned commenter above. I will say that the WP:FILM "Reception" guidelines are to quote professional critics only and not audience or fan reaction. Therefore, aside from the speculative "was said to" and "allegedly" involved, the entire couple of sentences containing this passage is disallowed: ...was said to have allegedly drawn up negative reception from its audience. Viewers believed [emphasis added] ..." --Tenebrae (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, a passage by a reviewer from New York is WP:CRYSTAL and not actually giving his opinion of the movie itself: "He concluded that the film 'still may [receive awards], but to judge from some of the vicious pans coming out of Venice today, it might have longer legs as a Razzie front-runner.'[48]" That's speculation, and not his specific thoughts on the positive or negative aspects of the movie itself. It should be removed. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, the comment "Steve Pond of Reuters theorized that W.E probably would not help in 'turning Madonna's faltering movie career'.[47]" Pond is not reviewing the film per se, what offering WP:CRYSTAL theory about the filmmaker. That's not a review of the movie. It's not like there aren't or won't be a wealth of critics and formal reviews; there's no need to include speculative marginalia. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The passage with quotes from The Times' critic confused me. Was she saying the humor was intentional or not? --Tenebrae (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Final couple things: I think "slammed" is more casual and conversational than format encyclopedic WP:TONE. I think mentioning "three stars" without saying if it's on a scale of 1 to 4 or 1 to 10 isn't helpful. And I would point out that these are all pre-release film-festival reviews; industry / trade critics and popular-press critics are separate creatures. It's quite rare that we have such a large Reception section for an unreleased film.
I was asked to come here and offer my opinion. I did so, and am leaving now without further comment or returning. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Composer

Abel Korzeniowski confirmed on his Facebook account that he is the only only composer of the film, not Madonna or Orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.66.245 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can rename Wikipedia Legolaspedia? I do beweave that I have yet to come across someone on line as hideously self-righteous as *it*. You scoff at someone using The enquirer as a source - rightly so in my opinion, BUT in the meantime are happy and adamant that an initial response from The Daily Mail should be included, even when people suggest to you otherwise. You make wikipedia a miserable and unwelcoming place for anyone else top contribute.Turdalina (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Come up with reasons based on policy, otherwise you know where's the door. Bad-mouthing me doesn't help too. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Turdalina, your vulgar and insulting language is inappropriate and violates WP:UNCIVIL. Please speak like a mature adult. Facebook, as a self-published-source open to unverified self-promotion and puffery, has an extremely limited window of allowable use. Please see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My language - which is not vulgar in the slightest - is extremely appropriate. The statement is accurate and if people are concerned about it being insulting then they shouldn't act in such a way that causes people to want to *insult* them. The user in question is domineering, condescending, completely self-righteous and has to have the LAST say over every single inclusion on a page regarding Madonna. I am not suggesting that the person who wants to use a FB source should be allowed to, it just seemed an appropriate moment to remind someone that they do not own/run/manage or have a monopoly on what information should be allowed on here.Turdalina (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

And don't presume to tell me what a mature adult should speak like. Adults come in all shapes and forms. The fact that I am an adult AND speaking should suggest to you that the manner in which I am speaking is Adult. You may not like it, but that is your problem for assuming that all adults are like yourself, and not being able to grasp the concept of variation and difference.Turdalina (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Reviews

I see other film pages with reviews that look exactly the same. From your profanity it is clear you are do not want this film seen in a bad light and are not remaining neutral. At some point the fact that film has failed on it's initial in the eyes of many critics will need to be evaluated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.119.134 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Legolas wrote: "I'm hiding this whole section. Have you people ever heard of WP:PLAGIARISM? You people have just fucking copied every review without altering anything. Do you want the sources to smack up your asses on PLA claim?)"

Please halt the profanity. From you user page it is clear that you are a fan of the film-maker so please maintain neutrality. What I'm seeing is that there are no reviews now. WHY? When all other film pages have reviews?! Why are all the reviews missing? You were not removing the section yesterday when only two positive reviews were included so I don't think you are maintain neutrality.

Read what I wrote on your talk page and please don't give me a lecture on WP:NPOV okay? — Legolas (talk2me) 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As I'd mention in your defense to Turdalina above: Language, please. We're all articulate enough here that we can make our points without profanity. Cursing at other editors isn't right — would you like someone to curse at your mother or your child? There's a reason you wouldn't, and it applies to all of us. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Legolas, let's keep the discussion here in more of a public forum. out of courtesy, may I ask if you are an Admin? Are you taking ownership of the article? I feel you are edit warring and the plagiarism claim is exaggerated. I can see how much madonna means to you from your page and I'm sorry for you. I know how many of her fans were hoping this would be a success for her so it must be very upsetting that the film has been mostly a disaster with critics but this has to stay neutral. You had no problem with the exact same reviews yesterday because they were all positive. Let's include all the reviews, positive and negative, ok? please drop the profanity and angry tone. Let's make this look good. thanks. ~~69.237.119.134~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.119.134 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


(Sorry SineBot! Still figuring this out. Thanks) So Legolas, how should the reviews go in then? We can start with the two and 1/2 positive reviews first? Daily Mail, Chicago Examiner and Telegraph? Sound ok? (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviews are up again. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw that and I would also like to edit them. If we disagree we can discuss it here. I am certainly not vandalizing any page and I'm baffled.(talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are baffled, ask it in the talk page here. You cannot go around modifying sourced content, calling others biased. Wikipedia goes by policy of verifiability not the truth. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So how do you feel the film has been received? I'm seeing mostly negative reviews with the Daily Mail being the lone positive review. Is calling the film critics "divided" fair? 95% of what I have read from the top sources is negative.(talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your or my opinion being added. When a particular reputed source calls the review to be divided,it is divided. Again, WP doesnot report truth, only verifiable material. And there's no point in time and again asking me for my opinion or calling me biased. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
But over two dozen sources are saying the film was "slammed" and has "flopped" more than are saying reviews are "divided" or "mixed." (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The film hasn't been released yet. How is it flopping? The section is balanced now. If you have constructive criticism to add, then discuss, else I'm not interested in the same broken record. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that is what CRITICS are saying not me. The film has been poorly received thus far. If you want to say "mixed" then fine, but there is not a "divided" consensus at all. I'm happy to post all the negative reviews from actual critics and the positive and then see what we have. I'm not ok with Kate Muir's review being white washed, she had a very pejorative review. She did NOT give it "three stars and keep with what the Telegraph" said and that needs to be changed.

"Broken record" is an insult, please cut it out. I'm allowed edit this article too. (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Really Catherine? Are we going down the same road? There is Guardian which also talks about a divided opinion. Again, talk to me on the basis of sources, that's all I can hear. Anything else is pure WP:OR to me. Katie Muir's review is not added in that way. Prose has been structured to flow well, so that two agreeing points in two different reviews are joined together. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop insulting me. Truly, please stop playing games. I have every right to edit this page. Prose is structured, I feel to white wash some areas but we can agree.You have to work with others. (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So you admit you are Catherine huh? And where are these insults may I see? Is it the same as calling someone Mandonna? — Legolas (talk2me) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh and Billboard too see! Sorry, not everything is negative per reliable sources. — Legolas (talk2me) 18:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeat: Please stop insulting me and stop bullying me. Truly, please stop. I have every right to edit this page. Prose is structured, I feel to white wash some areas but we can agree.You have to work with others, this is a shared website. And W.E. is being mostly POORLY received. (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where? In Mars or Jupiter? As I said, talk to me or indulge in discussion with me when you have reliable sources to back up your claim. Otherwise leave this "stop bullying me" crap for someone else. I don't have time for it, neither do I tolerate socks. — Legolas (talk2me) 18:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Drop the profanity please and stop accusing. I won't stoop to the level you are baiting me towards. This is just a film. You have to share on wikipedia and I think happily for you, Madonna will get more chances to make more films. We all start somewhere and bad reviews and flops are how film-makers get better. By the way The Guardian review is actually even MORE of a negative review than the Xan Brooks piece. The reviewer is saying that Madonna not only made a bad film but that is not even funny. unless you read it as "praise" that is what he is saying.(talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bye and goodnight. — Legolas (talk2me) 18:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm not going anywhere!! Your false vendettas won't win you any respect. Don't you realize that you don't control this article? Are you going attack everyone who wants this article to be more neutral? talk) 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, if you are not Catherine, why the worry? Checkuser never lies. If you are indeed that foul user, you will get blocked faster than the speed of light. — Legolas (talk2me) 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Foul"? You really have poor manners. You have made anyone "worry" who does not like madonna or your editing that they cannot enjoy wikipedia. How negative this has been when I have been considerate and tried to work with you. I just want to edit this page fairly and want your bias taken out or at least ironed out so things are fair.It will happen sooner or later no matter whom you block. You want to make it so difficult and nasty for others to edit that they just walk away. Won't happen.

talk) 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

3O declined

A third opinion request was filed for this page, but it's clear this is not a content dispute that requires an opinion, it's a personal dispute between editors, which is not what the third opinion process is meant for. I suggest taking this to wikiquette assistance or some other step in the dispute resolution process. —Darkwind (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I think it can be resolved fairly. When more reviews come in as the film appears again at the Toronto Film festival then we can hopefully come to a consensus.We may have to wait until the film is in general release or if it goes straight to dvd in December. 69.237.118.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

W.E or W.E. ?

I think the title is correct with an point after the "E" - W.E.

The film poster shows W.E. with two points. 79.214.148.43 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although I haven't seen any film poster. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

here is the theatrical film poster released in 2011: http://absolutemadonna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/WE-1.jpg 79.214.148.43 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's a fan created poster from a long time. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And now? I don't see the second point. The press article about the film shows also "W.E." 79.214.128.225 (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have actually seen both W.E. and W.E in the press release. Hence I am actually waiting for the official poster as that would clear up this doubt once and for all. Would you mind waiting till then? — Legolas (talk2me) 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thats a good deal. Thx! 79.214.128.225 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources

— Legolas (talk2me) 16:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Most are rehashing but here is a negative review from Variety:

What's the point of adding the same rehashed links? Please add links which provide new argument. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Variety is new and NEGATIVE, not mixed.I will provide a concise list (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then do so without rehashing the same stuff. Variety has been added. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


A good review from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-we-venice-film-festival-2347909.html --79.112.48.178 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 2:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 



        what 'bout this one?

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/w-e/5963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.108.46.106 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Perhaps this edit war between 69.237.119.134 and Legolas2186? The dispute seems to be over reviews, is that right? Can we discuss it here? ItsZippy (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are two sections down. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - should have spotted that. Ignore this, then. ItsZippy (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been fully protected three days per WP:AN3#User:Legolas2186 reported by User:ItsZippy (Result: Protected, warnings). There is a lot of section blanking by anonymous editors and some users on this talk page have made complaints about plagiarism. If there is consensus that these problems have been taken care of, ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP or ask for the protection to be reduced to semi. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily Screen

The film got actually a pretty good review from the website:

  • It is a beautifully staged film punctuated with nuggets of charm and style
  • It is a beautiful film and often a real visual treat
  • always offering up images that are beautifully shot and staged.
  • W.E. is a film will have its detractors and while certainly not perfect it does have delightful and memorable moments…

How can somebody get "dissapointed" from that? Alecsdaniel (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolving edit warring

I am open to all suggestions to improve the article and stop the conflict. I think one course of action to resolve the editing conflicts could be:

1. Have a section for the controversy with the Daily Mail. Mention the litigious history eg: fact that Madonna sued them successfully in 2009 and that Weinstein's Miramax lawyers had the first review ('It looks sumptuous but the script is dreadful') pulled on the eve of the première.

2. Edit the Venice reviews with the most reputable sources first (newspapers, print, magazines, critics etc who actually ATTENDED the screening).

3. We ideally should to come to an agreement on what "divided" "positive", and "mixed" reviews entail. "Better than Filth and wisdom" , "Better than expected", " bad film but great visuals" are not positive reviews they are mixed. If there is going to be a quote from Sky News (who did not have a critic in Venice) claiming that "critics are divided" then that seems pov. There needs to be a quotes from a reputable source like Indie WIRE which actually DID have a critic at the film festival.

I have tried to agree but "completely divided" is not what I'm finding when the top reviews are stacked up.

4. The Anti Semitic accusations should have their own section and must be included. Madonna's thanking of John Galliano and Leni Riefenstahl, (who's name is alleged misspelled) in the credits should be mentioned. And the fact that critics have felt there was a white wash by Madonna of the Duke/Duchesses friendship with Hitler and Nazi Germany should be included.

"Aware that most auds(sic) today think of Edward as a Nazi sympathizer, the script acknowledges his reputation but airily dismisses it as mere "rumors," and conveniently ignores matters of historical record, such as the fact that the duke and duchess were honored guests of Hitler at his Berchtesgaden retreat as late as 1937. (from Variety)

(talk) 12:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.118.132 (talk)

Catherine Huebscher, you have been blocked from Wikipedia, please don't post your theories here. I have reported you at SPI again. Tre pointed much above the problems with the reviews and much of them need to be removed altogether, because many of them doesn't review the film, but Madonna's reputation only. And no, Anti-Semitic accusations won't have their own sections. Thats WP:UNDUE and frankly unnecessary, a mere mention of them in the related review should be enough. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected - content dispute

This page has been fully protected one week due to ongoing content dispute. If there is consensus reached over the content that is in dispute, ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thank you, --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing, I've reduced the block to "semi" as there's clear evidence of sock puppetry to evade an existing block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

Thank you. Legolas2186 is taking the Kat Muir review for and twisting it into a positive one. In his own words he refuses to edit in the Nazi sympathizer controversy which is is many of the major papers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.171.57 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Judy Parfitt in W.E.?

On imdb.com Judy Parfitt is not listed in the cast list of W.E. Who has this confirmed that she's in W.E.? 79.214.148.196 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

God knows, since IMDB is not considered reliable, we need to have the film released to mainstream audience to confirm Parfitt's role. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Official film title: W./E.

I think it should be noted the official film title is not W.E nor W.E. it is actually W./E. proof can be found here behind a photo of Madonna at the Toronto International Film Festival [1]. A friend of mine was at the Toronto premiere and this title with the slash also appears in the film titles. So this is the actual official title of the film. JWAD Communicate|Nicely 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, thanks for pointing it out Jwad. I wanted some confirmation. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries, always happy to help. I think the article needs to be moved to this title. JWAD Communicate|Nicely 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The poster graphic may or may not be the onscreen title or how the title is presented in copyright indicia. Variety and other trade publications are giving the title as "W.E." I'm not sure where the version with just the W capitalized is coming from; I'm not finding evidence of that anywhere in either trade or consumer press. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The title as W./E. is pure stylization and has been noted as such in the lead. The rest of the article notes it as W.E. only. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For future use

W.E. soundtrack

I have removed the addition of infobox for now. It seems that there is a chance that the soundtrack might gain enough notability to have its own article, what with the amount of critical reception coming in its way. Hence then we can make a new article ala W.E. (sountrack), and move it. So please be patient. List sources here. It's gonna be awesome! :) — Legolas (talk2me) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Poster

Why has there been a fake, fanmade poster added to this article? This is not official and has replaced the one used in the release? jwad.... blah | blah | blah 22:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W.E./Archive_1&oldid=1137303161"