Jump to content

Talk:W. (film)

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

Jack Daniels

[edit]

I don't see anything in the source stating that it is actual JD placement. It seems the statement was made more offhand, not in reference to an actual product placement agreement being in place. Removing this (but not the actual mention of JD). Mechroneal (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

$830 million? What? No way. Source is login-protected for full article. No way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.68.130 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should be created when filming is verified to have begun. Filming for this one is scheduled for the end of April, which is still some time away. Oliver's previous attempt, Pinkville, was canceled three weeks before filming, so this threshold exists for a reason. While I personally don't think that there would be interference with this one, it still cannot be guaranteed beyond our personal beliefs. I've revised the article to look a little nicer, so if we can merge this elsewhere, we can easily revive the article if filming begins. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting date is so near, I would keep it unless delayed. Alientraveller (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Steam really seems to be building on this one with all the casting news appearing in the press.--J.D. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we can practice WP:IAR here, but like Alientraveller suggested, if there's a delay, merge it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to seal the deal -- IMDb indicates that filming has begun, and I doubt there's a strong reason to dispute this status. This film article is definitely going to garner some attention upon release... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation dump

[edit]
I implemented what I could, because for now there's no telling how many historical accuracies/inaccuracies will be in the film. Alientraveller (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm absolutely positive that we can get the lay of the land in terms of historical accuracy when the film comes out. This is more like placeholder information, educating readers in the meantime. I have to admit that I don't know what to think of this film being based on someone so current. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this is the place to comment on this but I believe it is fantabolous that Stone is making this picture now. Remember Fahrenheit 911 and World Trade Center, both using the medium to tell current stories and persuade the public (and don't forget SNL). Stone is a god. Master Redyva ♠ 15:29, April 12, 2008 (UTC)
Well, the talk page guidelines say that we need to stay on topic (meaning the improvement of the article, not opinion of the film), so it's probably best not to go on with this general discussion. It's probably better to talk about our opinions of the film on each others' user talk pages. This talk page shouldn't change into a forum. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, avoid stone as a god comments. The movie is taking a lot of liberties even if it is based on a true story. Remember JFK? Sure, the man portrayed in the movie genuinely believed in a 'magic bullet' but anyone who knows about the car and the window knows the bullet was a straight shot. My point being, that millions of people now believe in the 'magic bullet' or a 'second shooter' because of the film, and not because of history itself. (The car had jump seats, which modern cars dont have, and Connally was lined up perfectly) SO take this movie with a grain of salt. The Doors movie was about Jim, not the Doors, and the Doors themselves and Patricia K Morrison all have issues with the movie. Expect W to be far from the truth as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we cannot truly say based on a true story because it is loosely based on a true story. If one has seen the trailers Oliver Stone took his liberties to take the real life situations and make follies out of them. In addition, some of the things shown by the trailers never happened (I am sure there are articles on this). I think maybe we should say "loosely" and it will not affect the idea itself based on a true story.--72.202.148.237 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year

[edit]

Since the article cites that the film will be released in 2008, someone should probably change the title of this article to reflect that. --Zarathustra327 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes 'teaser' art

[edit]

Would it be OK to incorporate the official Cannes 'teaser' art (as seen at IONCinema.com) into the infobox? — Hugh 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use

[edit]

Accuracy Section

[edit]

Being mostly just a reader on Wikipedia, I'm surprised to see such a poorly written section. All of it is true, but this is a politically-neutral wiki. 75.68.103.16 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? If you wanna complain about something, fix it yourself. Actually, get a log in name, it's not that hard. Wildroot (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bite the IPs... he/she is referring to an opinion section that was removed shortly after the comment was posted. --Ckatzchatspy 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wiki article an ad for the movie? Reads like a slightly disguised ad. It is good to see that they disclosed some of the financing (i.e. China for instance). To be fair, I have not yet seen the movie, but this article leans more towards seeing the film as substantive - i.e. implying that "W" is substantially based on actual history. Other viewers familiar with history will have to agree/disagree here, hopefully using solid references to make their points. But right now, it's about 80% an "infomercial" for the movie.71.155.241.119 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)71.155.241.119 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to work on this article that much, but I have supplied some useful links for the "Citations for use" section above. Some of those links concern the historical accuracy of this film, thus you can add any criticism you want of the movie, just take into account of original research and reliable sources policies. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article NEEDS an accuracy section.Mrrealtime (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be well-cited from reliable sources and they would probably be hard to find. If there were any newspaper articles highlighting inaccuracies of the film they could be added, but they'd probably be better included in the Reception section. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pressly

[edit]

Should there be a mention of Anne Pressly, the actress and news anchor who had a small part in the film, who was attacked and murdered recently? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In a dream the President is a baseball player again and hears a ball hit to the outfield but Bush cannot find the ball."

[edit]

This was written by a five year old.--Occono (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate this plot summary for the worst ever written, in the history of everything. Wow. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible. I tried to clean it up a bit but...wow.139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of 'China' in map in war room scene

[edit]

The scene I'm referring to is when GW Bush & his cabinet are discussing how to justify a war in Iraq among the war cabinet. The (presentation) map shown there shows Tibet as not being part of China (as it is not colored in yellow). Why would a Republican think this way? Only a Pelosian Democrat would. Jsw663 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a movie. Wildroot (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're really committed to the accurate portrayal of hostile communist takeovers. KyuzoGator (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who knows? Mabye they actually did use those maps in the Bush White House, and Stone researched this very carefully. It wouldn't surprise me. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

I'd say the plot summary needs a LOT of work. I did my best cleaning up the grammar/spelling/whatever, but I'm still not convinced the whole section can stand as it is. I realize it's difficult, as a lot of the movie is based on historical events, but there's got to be more "meat" in this section! How about the acrimony (subtle as it may be) between Rummy and Powell? The resignation of Kay (wasn't it?) as a result of the intelligence failures in finding WMD? Any ideas how we can get this in the article? I'm not suggesting delete the whole section, but as it's written, it drags down the overall quality of the article. --MicahBrwn (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary should be a summary, not a blow by blow account of every scene, and it should be 400-700 words long, the current summary is actually a little too long, and should be compressed further. And you couldn't delete that section, and is it required as part of the MOS. However there is nothing stopping you rewriting it. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity name is not vandalism

[edit]

The name of the fraternity in the film is Delta Iota Kappa (ΔΙΚ), it can be clearly seen on the paddles held in the hazing scene. I'm sure it was meant to be sarcastic, but please do not assume that this was drive-by vandalism of this article. Bush's real fraternity at Yale was ΔΚΕ, however I guess the filmmakers wanted to fictionalize it. KyuzoGator (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

I feel there should be mention of the somewhat misleading marketing of the film. The coming attractions made it appear to be a comedy when the film itself, although there are several funny moments, is anything but. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.121.36 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right?

[edit]

Someone needs to mention in the reception section that some fans thought it was a complete disrespect for W. Sure, he did alot of stupid things, but already people are liking him better than Obama. So what's next? Another "Biographical" film called "O."?! This movie seems more like a mockumentary to me.

And that is your opinion for which you have a right to hold, but which is inappropriate to add to the article. Do you have reliable sources that describe the "fans [who] thought [the movie] was a complete disrespect for" the former president? Or sources that describe the film as a "mocumenary"? We collect what reliable sources have said about topics and present them in a neutral point of view, in the proportion that they are held by experts in the field. If the claims that you have made are verifiable and currently missing from the article, your providing links to these sources would be appreciated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This movie was anti-Bush?

[edit]

Is there anything more about this movie being anti-Bush? It sure came of pro-Bush to me (and I'm a Republican to the bone). I think Oliver Stone is a closeted Conservative if you ask me. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb's reaction

[edit]

The article states: 'The Bush administration never officially commented on the film. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is portrayed in the film, called the Oedipal rivalry "high-grade, unadulterated hooey"'

Shouldn't that be sibling rivalry? Oedipal rivalry would mean that W wanted to get rid of his dad and marry his mom. I didn't see that in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.70.252 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate scene

[edit]

In one of the debate scenes toward the start of the movie, or maybe Bush was making a campaign speech (it's been a year or so since I've seen it), they show the audience and Fred Phelps is there. I'd know his face and those cold, cruel eyes anywhere. 71.50.232.16 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC) LadyAlly[reply]

I doubt it; he would not be part of a Hollywood film, and it's not listed on his imdb page. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Chung

[edit]

I removed this reference to Gillian Chung, mainly because it seemed like an opinion. I doubt she was cut from the film - in her role as, apparently, a stripper who may not have had any lines - because of some photo scandal in Hong Kong, no matter how big the news was there. This sounds like puffery to make her seem like more of a big deal than she is, or that her part was bigger than it was. 71.198.222.71 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bush"

[edit]

In reading this article, descriptions of the main character as "Bush" were confusing because of all the other characters also sharing that family name. Would anyone mind if I changed the name to "W.", or does anyone have another suggestion as to how to avoid this confusion? Juno (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on W. (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical film

[edit]

If it's from Oliver Stone, it's made up, not biographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:18B0:7390:9C23:1B62:6833:FC4D (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W._(film)&oldid=1245475121"