Jump to content

User talk:Artoasis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Artoasis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mr Radio Guy !!! 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Great job on Jeremy Irons lede, wonder if you could do one on another actor?

You completely revamped the article as the lede gives a very good summation of his career, and of the article that follows. I have a favour to ask (though i understand her work may not be on your radar so no problem if you can't). It concerns Emma Thompson. Her lede consists of two short sentences...and one of those is about her being patron of a refugee council.... so pretty much zero on an acting career of winning two Academy Awards, BAFTA's, Golden Globes...and many nominations. In the Name of the Father in particular she gives a very strong performance which led to an Oscar nomination. I'd have a go myself but really i wouldn't have any idea of how to do it..If you could do something that would be great.

StiffyAdams 10:52 Feb 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much... absolutely its the more teen orientated articles that recieve most attention. Your work is appreciated mate.StiffyAdams 12:28 Feb 16, 2010 (UTC)

impressionism (play)

Hi Artoasis, Thank you for making the corrections. Yeah, I am a fan of the play. I am close to someone who was part of the production. I saw it multiple times and it was a beautiful play that the audiences loved. The critics attacked because it was very gentle and hopeful, without very much shock value. So be it. The only part of the article I think is a little much is Brantley's "stars were ill-used". I think just saying he was negative or his opinion of the play being "undernourished" is more than enough to get his opinion across. It's interesting. There is a paper that services a large part of New Jersey, called The New Jersey Courier, that absolutely raved and raved about the piece, and there's a very good blog site called Steve on Broadway. He's very good and I've enclosed this url if you care to look at something. http://steveonbroadway.blogspot.com/2009/06/sobs-best-of-2008-09-best-new-plays.html There are assorted other ones that call the play the best and/or most overlooked bla bla quack quack... Anyway, I won't bother you anymore with this. Sometimes these things happen with good plays. There was one called The Farnsworth Invention by Aaron Sorkin, and Brantley also took it to task, I think unfairly. I just think sometimes we take more delight in accentuating the negatives when we should be more fair about the positives. Again, thanks for your help. Jogeybogey Jogeybogey (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of "A Lie of the Mind"

I just finished a draft here. I elaborated on Brantley's review, 'cause, you know, he's THAT powerful. And I included EW's review as a mixed one, 'cause although the reviewer gave the production an A-, it's not exactly as positive as the ones from NYT, New Yorker, NYMag, AP and Variety. If you feel EW's review is not mixed enough, I can replace it with NYPost's review. I realized that the Hollywood reporter gave it a negative review, but I don't think it has that much cred. And there's also a negative one from Bloomberg, but it's entirely an attack on Sam Shepard. As for the one from NY Daily News, the reviewer Joe something seemed to have a problem with Hawke. He never gave positive reviews to anything Hawke did onstage. All in all, it's a very successful production. I'm really surprised it's got raving reviews from several most influential theatre critics. - Artoasis (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, a little gossip to share with you, ;p During the rehearsal of the play, Hawke's hero Shepard took one look at the set, and declared that Hawke had "ruined his play" [1]. To add insult to injury, he did an interview with NYT [2], and likened A Lie of the Mind to "an old, broken-down Buick", then encouraged people to go see his new play instead. Unbelievable. Poor Ethan Hawke must have been under a lot of pressure lately. - Artoasis (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the wonderful profile in the NYMag, I read it again, but didn't find much info on the play. If you want to include Hawke's comments on the play, I suggest you check out this interview with NYT [3], which I also referenced in the review section. - Artoasis (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the Hollywood Reporter, as the title of the article was that Hawke "struggled" or something, but when I read it didn't really say anything, so. You know, the starting paragraph for the EW was the bit I was going to include, but if the EW had a mixed opinion about it, that works, then. I guess we can add the Shepard comment, but I'm not sure that "Another Eye Opens" is a reliable source. Yeah, poor Hawke. If he talks about why he did the play, in the NYT, that can definitely be added. I mean, does he talk about why he decided to direct it? I looked over your sandbox, and a couple of things standout. Like this ---> "It was the first major Off-Broadway revival of the award-winning play since its 1985 premiere", we should avoid adding "award-winning", per WP:Peacock. We don't need to list Brantley's occupation, since one of his reviews are there, you know. The EW bit, to me, doesn't make sense. Do you mean ---> "Entertainment Weekly commented that Hawke's "hearty" revival was "wobbled a bit in its late stages", and it managed to "resurrect the spellbinding uneasiness of the original"? Also, I think we should stick to two reviews. ;) A consistency. Nonetheless, great work. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
About Shepard's comment: I wish we could add them too, but as you said, a blog is not a reliable source. Hawke did talk about why he wanted to direct the play in the NYT interview. About "sticking to two reviews", I guess we could exclude The New Yorker's review then. The EW reviewer thought the show as a whole managed to "resurrect the spellbinding uneasiness of the original", but he pointed out some flaws like "it wobbled a bit in its late stages". Maybe I shouldn't use the word "though", how about "while"? - Artoasis (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've included Hawke's interview with NYT this time, but these comments seemed a little generic to me. And I got rid of the New Yorker's review. If you want to make any changes, just go ahead and edit it. - Artoasis (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
For the future, I'll reply here. :) Yeah, too bad, but we need to stick with the reliable sources guideline. Oh well. Good, as long as why Hawke explains why he decided to take on A Lie of Mind we're good. No, actually, "while" doesn't seem to work. For an example, just look at what's noted in the Stage section, as example for writing something out, that's what I do. This is what we could say, the first line in your work space, "According to Hawke, he described the production as an "'actors' actor' production", and explained that he was drawn to it due to its "juxtaposition of humor and mysticism". IDK, something like that, you know, or not. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Good, I think we're basically set. I took down the "actors' actor" part, cause I realized that Hawke used it to describe the 1985 production. (And I think "according to Hawke" seems a little redundant.) If you think the wording is still iffy, just edit it directly for any changes you want to make, then we can officially integrate this part into the article. - Artoasis (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna tell you about the actors actor bit, but slipped my mind. Alright, I looked at your suggestion, and it works. I'll add it to the article. Good work, Artoasis, and I apologize if I was ever rude to you during our first encounter or after that, I'm not like that, but I do tend to "act" like that, so I apologize. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've added the bit. If something's wrong with it, go ahead and fix it. Good work. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I just wanted to apologize, as I know I needed too, didn't want to come off as a two-face, you know. But, let's put this behind us and move on, I guess. :) You do great contributions here yourself, too, so never forget that. If there's ever a time you need a favor or something, you know where to find me. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You helped when I was doing some work on A Lie of the Mind a couple+- weeks ago and I appreciated your suggestion -- moved some work over to Sam Shepard article accordingly. Thanks.

On Brooklyn's Finest more recently, I tried something new to me -- adding links with bare description to two talk-show appearances by actors in the movie -- to the Release section and you nixed them, saying "per WP:MOSFILM: it's not common practice to include these."

In the "Release" section of the MOSFILM article, it says: "Relevant marketing information can be included in this section." To my mind, the appearances were exactly that -- marketing information. With the networks increasing the routine availability of such video, I thought they were both good additions to the article. I'd happened to have seen most of both broadcast, have followed the movie for quite a long time (it's taken a long time to bring to this point, post-production; and I contributed to the article quite a while ago, first time), and thought a reader may well like to go to those appearances for further texture on the film. E.g. the stories of filming were pretty vivid: WSnipes being hailed as Nino (New Jack City character name) and RGere as Pretty Woman in Brownsville, ... fair amount of pandemonium but also largely good energy on/around set. ... Yes, me translating the clips into words ... is "more Wiki," probably, from your vantage. I would take that nudge (having done the work here ... to a little degree), but would first appreciate your thoughts.

A couple of follow-ons: First, I don't think much in the way of "words" should be required, for these links. Encouraged, yes, but not required. If someone does the link(s), they're there for usage. Second, looking forward, I like that incorporating the links in Wiki in turn may drive traffic at the networks' sites which in turn may encourage them to extend availability. (I don't know how long they keep these available, but feel maybe not that long. Another editorial function at Wiki I'd encourage is, when a link shows up dead, to at least note that fact, dated, in the reference. I haven't seen much of this, but have done some.) Back to the current subject, I feel the whole presentation/feedback loop re: the networks and the Web is pretty fragile and exploratory, now, so like to encourage where I can. Yes, ... the interface between video and text .... (And broadband availability, for that matter. ... I for one can't watch these links.) Well, I'll leave this all at that, for now. Swliv (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Artoasis. I'll respond it over there, at my talk. Swliv (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hawke

Hey Art, how you been? I looked over your work and made a couple of changes/additions, hope you don't mind. Hawke's performance in Brookly's Finest getting good reviews doesn't need a whole bunch of sources supporting that, just add that "The film opened to mediocre reviews,[1] yet his performance was well received, with the New York Daily News concluding, "Hawke – continuing an evolution toward stronger, more intense acting than anyone might've predicted from him 20 years ago – drives the movie"[2], and the review to conclude it with and your set. Ex: See what I ended up doing for Taking Lives. Adding four sources to support that it's kind of ridiculous, you know.

Again, you seem to praise all of his best films, so I added the reception to Daybreakers which was mixed, to have a consistency, you know. Trust me when I tell you that I don't want someone to come to the article and get it delisted from FA because the article seems to praise him. The article needs to be fair. Apart from it all, it looks great. Oh, and, I've re-added the Salon.com source since it's not dead. Also, New York, I Love You was released in October, and Staten Island was released in November, might want to keep that in mind. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did my best with the info., and I'm glad you liked it. Do you want me to add it to the article, or.... Oh, I've gone through that too. Yesterday in David Schwimmer's article I was doing an external links check and this link was "supposedly" dead. I was going to remove it from the article, but I kept loading the page and it "magically" was not dead. You gotta be careful, cause I learned that the hard way. I remember I ended up removing a "supposedly" dead ref. days later a user re-added the source, I ended up reverting it saying it was dead, until I checked the link and it was working, that was so embarrassing. Anyways, just remember that they might not be dead, or maybe they are. P.S. I hope you don't mind me calling you "Art". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response, I was busy looking after Kirsten Dunst's article, at it was featured on the Main Page yesterday, and boy was there a lot of vandalism on the article. Anyways, yeah it's fine that you added the info. into Hawke's article, I kinda knew you were going to add it, so. Cool, cool. I just wanted to be sure if I could call you "Art", you know. You can call me "Blue", I mean everyone does, and I guess you should, too. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Films Project

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
  • Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Collectonian

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter

The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you, thank you, I appreciate the praise. :) Yeah, getting a huge superstar, like Pitt, to FA is tough work... trust me when I tell ya. Hmmm, use the official website one and the Vanity Fair one, since no source from VF is in the article. Let's not get repetitive with the same sources, you know. Yeah, I saw that [for the PL stuff], and there good changes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You Can't Take It With You

Why is a revival of the play on Broadway not relevent in an article about the play? Fredrik Coulter (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Outstanding job on Emma Thompson

Sorry i havent responded sooner, i literally just got your message now as i haven't logged on to wikipedia in well over a month. Had a look at the lede for Emma Thompson, excellent job, really appreciate it. Very well presented and succintly sums up her career to date. Your edits are a huge asset to Wiki so keep doing what you're doing mate. Thanks again. StiffyAdams 06:10 April 19, 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS April Newsletter

The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reality Bites

The source in the Hawke article says the following, "After a promising opening weekend, the modestly budgeted ($11 million) Reality has grossed a disappointing $18.3 million in six weeks, prompting Entertainment Weekly to quip, 'Reality Bites the Dust.'" Funny that in Winona Ryder's article it says the same thing in Hawke's, but in Ben Stiller's it says that it was a success at the box office. So, which statement is correct? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Human centipede

Hey there.

Thanks for your help with this article. I'm against having a RT rating because the RT rating for this film has been jumping all over the place recently (last week it was 60 something, now it's 40 something) with more and more reviews coming in and therefore for the sake of stability I've been advised by the reviewer of the article not to have a rotten tomatoes rating yet. Once the film has been out a while and there are no more reviews to come (thus stabilising then of course we will have a RT rating). As for whether or not they are mixed reviews, surely 47% is pretty close to mixed? Half are generally positive an the other half are negative?

I'm trying to get this article bumped up to B-class at the moment and therefore I'm loath to go against what was discussed on the films talk page back in December when the article was given C-class. By following the suggestions given then I'd hope the article can make the jump.

Please feel free to come over the the articles talk page and let me know your thoughs. cya Coolug (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter

The May 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS June 2010 Newsletter

The June 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter

The July 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hawke

TBH, I'd rather leave the article the way it is. This is a superstitious thing from my part; if changes begin and if they're not good [to some people], they'll want to remove the star from Hawke's article, you know, and that'll be devastating. That's why I haven't made any changes to the article and have left them that way. I'm sorry you had to go through all this trouble, but let's just leave the settings alone... for now. Why remove the Alias appearance? It's a notable thing he did by guest starring in the show. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm down with your changes to the Stage section, though, keep in mind that I used cite journal for the Ben Brantley quote, cause you have "Removed two refs: one missing url link; the other pointing to a blank page" in the section of your workspace. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I was wondering if you were referring to the Brantley link, obviously not. BTW, the reason I had those three refs. there was due to the fact that the production that Hawke starred in were three different ones, so. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to brace yourself cause a certain someone—NOT ME btw—nominated Hawke's article to be featured in the Main Page on August 25... of this year. You do remember what I went through with Kirsten Dunst's article when it was in the Main Page, right? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ethan Hawke. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You removed 80% of the page with this edit. Courcelles 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And again. What are you trying to do here? Courcelles 03:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter

The August 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Artoasis/Archive_1&oldid=468551351"