User talk:Ethanlyon2

Welcome

Hello, Ethanlyon2 and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students. Go through our online training for students

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me, your course online volonteer, on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor has set up a course page, were you can find information about your course. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Course assignment | course = Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2016) | term = Spring 2016}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished, and agin, do not hesitate to contact me! (t) Josve05a (c) 01:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

right, I've got out a list of books on Lang and Metropolis. These are

The cinema of Fritz lang- Paul M. Jensen

Fritz Lang- Lotte Eisner

Metropolis- Thomas Elsaesser

The films of Fritz Lang- Tom Gunning

Fritz lang the nature of the beast- Patrick McGilligan

and a book of all possible references on Lang

I was literally about to come on here and suggest we make a list of books you want me to look or at the BFI. I'm afraid I won't be able to go before this friday because *busy* and *doing the art direction for a music video* but will do next week. Josslynggg (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ethanlyon2~~

Division of labour?

Right, by popular request, I'll put down what I mentioned in the Facebook post. We need to split the jobs into four areas

1. Improving the plot summary

2. Tidying and improving the references.

3. Creating a more balanced reception section

4. Miscellania- dates, actors et al. This is more to do with accuracy than anything else.

I think that if we split the references in half, ie one collects all the references and puts them in order and another puts them into the article itself, that'll give each of us a job.

Ethan

This all sounds good to me. I think we need a more detailed plan though as the email says that last week we decided a general outline of editing choices and commitments i.e. what you have mentioned above. I'm going to go in early tomorrow so if anyone else can, let me know and we'll meet to discuss before the class Paulwebb1021 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come to you at 10 at the library to discuss ~~Ethanlyon2~~

Ive mentioned on the talk page for the article that it may be benefical to add a larger section under the "Music" heading which delves exclusively into the Moroder soundtrack of the film, released in 1984, if we were to add this, i think it would be best placed beneath "original score" and before "other soundtracks", it is briefly mentioned in "other soundtracks", however, as this release of the film was fairly significant, i believe that it would be interesting to have a section that is dedicated to Moroder. WilliamBenjaminPritchard. (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9th Feb Joss and Paul

Today, Paul and I have:

1. Corrected a wongly ordered first and second name.

2. Added page numbers for three citations.

3. Identified a dead link and changed it to a live website.

4. Changed a citation so that it displays the archived website as well as the original source.

Josslynggg (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Release' and references

We've also come across something that we might want to change. Under 'Release' it is mentioned that there was "spontaneous applause" upon the film's release in Berlin but we found another (also better) source saying that other critics said there were boos and hisses etc. We've created a new section on the talk page and written an alternative sentence. We could also move that bit to go under Reception because that makes sense. We have it saved in my sandbox for when/if someone responds about it. Josslynggg (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We got a response from Barte giving us the go ahead so we've changed the wording and included a secondary source from a book. We can discuss whether we want to move it to go under the 'reception' heading too. Thoughts? Josslynggg (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've got our heads around referencing. It took a little while to get used to it but I'm confident that I can input any citations you think are necessary and will also spend some time tidying up existing references. There are more dead links that I'm confident we can replace with live ones. We've learnt how to archive pages as well which is really useful because it means that even if the original article is (re)moved, users can access the archived one. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good so far. Were the books useful? Putting it under reception sounds like a good idea~~ethanlyon2~~

To be honest we didn't really get to using the books! It took a lot longer than expected to do what we did (over three hours). I've taken them home though and will definitely refer to them for the next part. Also, when signing off, you only need to do four of these ~ ~ ~ ~ (without spaces) without your username in the middle. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I've spend a few hours today archiving web sources so that if they are moved or changed, people can still access them. There are lots of website sources on this page which isn't ideal. but I'd rather people can access them instead of being directed to dead links. The archiving website is under scheduled maintenance (I think I crashed it) but I will work on the last few links when it's back up. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actors section

Okay, I've done a bit of rewriting on the bit about actors. Here's the original;

The cast of the film was mostly composed of unknown actors; Heinrich George was a theater actor, Gustav Fröhlich was a journalist and 19-year-old Brigitte Helm who had no previous film experience though she had given the trial shots for the film Die Nibelungen.[9]

and here's my new version;

Lang cast two unknowns with little film experience in the lead roles. Gustav Frolich (Freder) had worked in vaudeville and was originally employed as an extra on Metropolis before Thea von Harbou recommended him to Lang. (Reference- Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast, Patrick McGilligan, 1997, P113) Brigitte Helm (Maria) had been given a screen test by Lang after he met her on the set of Die Nibelungen (use same reference as for the original), but would make her feature film debut with Metropolis. In the role of Joh Fredersen, Lang cast Alfred Abel, a noted stage and screen actor whom he had worked with on Dr. Mabuse the Gambler. Lang also cast his frequent collaborator Rudolph Klein-Rogge in the role of Rotwang. This would be Klein-Rogge’s fourth film with Lang, after Destiny, Dr. Mabuse the Gambler, and Die Nibelungen.

Thoughts?

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production date

Right, and here's my first attempt at the paragraph regarding the date.

The exact time period of Metropolis has been subject to multiple interpretations. The 2010 re-release and reconstruction, which incorporated the original title cards written by Thea von Harbou, do not specify an specific year. Prior to the reconstruction, Lotte Eisner and Paul M. Jensen had both placed the film’s events as happening sometime around the year 2000. (Fritz Lang, Lotte Eisner, 1976, P83) (The Cinema of Fritz Lang, Paul M. Jensen, 1969, P59). Giorgio Moroder’s re-scored version included a title card placing the film’s events in the year 2026, while Paramount’s original US release stated the film takes place in the year 3000.

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fab Ethan. I think both paragraphs sound great. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan and I have added a new section about 'date clarification' and even done the references as well. Josslynggg (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction

Right, so I've read the article on the reconstruction of Metropolis, and i've come up with a little thing to be put on the end of the restoration section. the start of the sentence is the same as the final sentence of the para, so that makes it easy to slot on. It's 77 words in length

Two short sequences, depicting a monk preaching and a fight between Rotwang and Fredersen, were damaged beyond repair. Title cards describing the action were inserted by the restorers to compensate. However, the Argentine print revealed a number of new scenes that enriched the film’s narrative complexity. In particular, the characters of Josaphet, the Thin Man and 11811 now appear throughout the film. The character of ‘Hel’ was also reintroduced, having been cut by Channing Pollock in 1927. [Fujiwara reference here]

Thoughts?

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joss and I have just added in two new sections onto the talk page. The sections are on actor experience and found footage. We've also added references to those as well Ethanlyon2 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Plot' section

I have posted on the talk page and have also now edited the opening of the "Plot" section of article, changing it from "In the year 2026" to "in the futuristic city of Metropolis", due to confusion within the talk page over different versions of the film providing different dates for the setting.WilliamBenjaminPritchard. (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section of the articles talk page, "plot lack of clarity", where another user has mentioned that, because there is an inclusion and description of other versions of the film, the plot summary itself is unclear. Which version of the film is being summarized? The mention of other versions is helpful but I do understand what is meant about the need for clarity. I think a possible approach to change this could be to state, within the first paragraph, which version of the film is being summarized in the plot outline. However, I haven't seen anything like that on other Wikipedia articles. So, a second solution could be to edit the plot outline so that it is definitely the original version which is being summarized, either deleting aspects where the summary deviates from the original or mentioning the changes, and stating which version they are from. WilliamBenjaminPritchard. (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBenjaminPritchard. (talk • contribs)

I think mentioning that this is the most complete edition of the film is important. In other pages, like that of Greed, where a large amount of footage is missing still, I think you'd have to do the most complete plot. I would mention it upfront that what you're about to read is taken from the 2010 reconstruction

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I think it will be useful to add a few words into the opening paragraph which will reduce the confusion over which version of the plot is being outlined in the "Plot" summary. Also, it has been mentioned that the plot section is overly long, delving into excessive detail, I intend to streamline the section, making it more precise. WilliamBenjaminPritchard. (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Hi everyone. I think I've managed to get rid of all the dead links. There is one left (about the New Pollutants soundtrack) but I couldn't find a reliable source (or a source at all) so I added 'citation needed' and then asked on the Talk Page whether the information should be removed. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josslynggg (talk • contribs) [reply]

H.G. Wells Review

Ethan, have you come across this H.G. Wells review in one of your books?

The Times went on the next month to publish a lengthy review by H. G. Wells who accused it of "foolishness, cliché, platitude, and muddlement about mechanical progress and progress in general." He faulted Metropolis for its premise that automation created drudgery rather than relieving it, wondered who was buying the machines' output if not the workers, and found parts of the story derivative of Shelley's Frankenstein, Karel Čapek's robot stories, and his own The Sleeper Awakes.

The source being used is a dodgy website so I was just wondering if you had a more reliable one. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book I was using today does have some stuff in it on Wells's review. Do you want to come and pick it up?

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan thank you so much for finding the quote. I've added the McGilligan reference to the page since it's a more scholarly source. Paulwebb1021 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Reception. See Article Talk Page.

I was thinking that we could add some positive critical response to the film under "Reception," to make the page less biased. This is what I was thinking - "At the time of the film’s release, some considered it a remarkable achievement and praised its visual splendour and ambitious production values, with a second reviewer stating that it completely surpassed the high expectations that it had".Gabemarzella (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, but make sure you put references in from the book. That way, it's more scholary

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of adding some more positive "Contemporary Acclaim" from The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw who says that The Maschinenmensch Robot based on Maria is "a brilliant eroticisation and fetishisation of modern technology." Gabemarzella (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do it

Ethanlyon2 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also corrected a mistake made by Barte, as when he moved the positive review up the page, he also repeated the word "considered" twice. I removed the repeated word. Gabemarzella (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]