Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soultaker (film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [1].

Soultaker (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Does anything really star Joe Estevez?"

— Crow T. Robot, Mystery Science Theater 3000

You like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident? Well I got an article for you. Presenting Soultaker, a 1990 movie starring Charlie Sheen's uncle and the films screenwriter as the female lead. What would have remained in obscurity if it wasn't selected as for mockery on the cult television series Mystery Science Theater 3000, this article presents a passion project based on a real near-death experience the screenwriter, Vivian Schilling, had in her life that became a 250k dollar project. And despite the negative reception it got, it still ended up winning a Saturn Award for Best Video Release.

And I believe I have scrounged up enough information about the movie to make it able to stand on its own as a Featured Article. GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

You drew me in with your opening line. Yes, I think I do like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident.

Got to dash; I'll try to find time to come and look further! Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooping around for more sources...

  • Mystery Science Theater 3000 Volume XIV, according to one article, includes "New interviews with Estevez and "Final Justice" writer-director Greydon Clark". Unless that's a different Esevez, it may contain some valuable material; is this something you've seen?
  • Kathleen Morgan reviewing the film in the Daily Record: "SOULTAKER (Ch5, 1.35am - 3.15am) Car crash couple hover in limbo - like the audience, really. Vapid supernatural hokum with Joe Estevez. 1990".
    • Morgan, Kathleen (8 May 1998). "Dressed to thrill as style police take off". Daily Record. p. 32.
      • You linked to a dab so I have no clue which Daily Record you are talking about. Also is that all the review is? GamerPro64 01:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry; the Scottish one. And yes, it's just a review alongside television listings. Don't feel you have to include it - indeed, it's hardly The Times - but included it as it's pretty much the most I found. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a few more reviews of the MST episode! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: A copyedit was done for the article. If there are anymore issues to the article that I have missed or have not been brought up let me know. GamerPro64 16:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for more sources.

  • There is pretty extensive discussion of the film in Horror Films of the 1990s by John Kenneth Muir. This should definitely be incorporated!
  • There's a whole chapter about it in The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000; this doesn't seem to be solely about MST3000. This, too, should be looked at!
  • It's mentioned in Nature of all places! I don't know if you could do much with it, but surprising!

I think there's probably potential for significant expansion yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the John Kenneth Muir book as a source. Not sure about adding the other two, though the Nature source reminded me of this Wall Street Journal piece on MST3K that mentioned Soultaker but not positive the material mentioned is worth noting. GamerPro64 15:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McFarland is a reputable publisher. I'd have thought the MST3000 book easily passes the bar for a reliable source (though perhaps not for outlandish claims). I'm left feeling there is probably more you can pull from the various sources used in the article and that have come up in this review, meaning I feel this falls a little short of the FA bar. A decent GA, for sure, but perhaps not at FA level right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled a bit more information from some of the sources. I could probably expand the Reception section more but not certain about any other section. GamerPro64 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit comments

[edit]

This was a really enjoyable article to read: I may have to watch this movie now! For the most part, it didn't need too much copyediting, just a bit of polishing here and there. As always, if you feel that any edits compromise the accuracy of the article's information, feel free to make changes. That said, I have a few lingering points of confusion while copyediting that perhaps you can clarify, particularly since I am unfamiliar with the source text:

  • "Candice dies instantly while Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy's souls leave their bodies." Is this because Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy are comatose while Candice is dead?
  • "While investigating the car, the Soultaker reveals himself and claims Brad's soul; the others, helpless to stop him, flee." Does the group investigate the car, or does the Soultaker? Or both?
  • "Michael Dare of Billboard directed praise towards the film in his review, calling it a "good looking, low-budget fantasy thriller", though he noted the cast's overacting and the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness".[14]" I'm a bit confused by the "transforming/transformation" part of this. Is it a criticism of the narrative (starts off serious and gets ridiculous) or is it the entire movie turning silly?
  • "A sequel was planned for the movie; it went through name changes from "Dark Angel" to "Dark World"." Was it just the name change from Dark Angel to Dark World, or were there more?
  • "However, the project fell through due to money issues." Anything more specific than this? Issues raising money, managing money, etc?
  • "Erik Adams from The A.V. Club considered it one of the most essential episodes, opining that Joel Hodgson's appearance in the episode was a “stamp of approval” for the show after he left." After he left its production?
Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying; I've now finished the copyedit. Best of luck, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit. GamerPro64 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

I am always down for a horror movie. The article is in very good shape. I just have the following comments, and I will be more than happy to support once everything is addressed. I would also recommend looking through the sources suggested by Josh Milburn in his comments. I hope this helps out at least a little:

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image, and make sure that any image used in the article has appropriate ALT text.
  • For this part (but the film was never made and Schilling turned its premise into a novel.), I would mention the year in which the novel was published, as I think that it is somewhat notable that it was published more than a decade after the film's release. The novel's name may be helpful as well, but I think the year would be beneficial to help the reader understand the chronology.
  • For this part (As well as writing the script for the film, Vivian Schilling), I do not think it is necessary to use Schilling's full name as it was used earlier in the same paragraph.
  • In the "Production" section, I would remove the wikilinks for the actors as they have already been linked in the "Plot" and "Cast" sections so it is somewhat overkill to me. Vivian Schilling in particular is linked twice in the "Production" section alone.
  • Would there be a way to combine these two sentences (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schilling. Inspiration for the film came in discussions between Schilling and Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson.)? Maybe something like (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schiller who was inspired by discussions with Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson) would work?
  • For this part (Her previous acting credits included Fred Olen Ray's Prison Ship), I would use a descriptor in front of Prison Ship to let the reader know that it is a film without having to click the wikilink.
  • Something about this part (Snake Eyes, which became part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes, which Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling were also involved with) reads awkwardly to me. I think it is the repetition of the "which" clauses. Maybe something like (Snake Eyes, a part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes which also involved Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling) would be better?
  • Would there be a way to avoid repeating "direct" twice in this sentence (Originally reluctant to direct, Rissi decided to join after being interested in directing a film involving parallel universes.)?
  • I would simplify this part (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene not written by her but added by investors and the film crew) to (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene added by investors and the film crew). The "not written by her" part is unnecessary in my opinion as "added by" already makes that clear.
  • Maybe there could be a way to combine these two sentences (Actor Joe Estevez starred as the titular "Soultaker". Originally he was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan.) into something like (Actor Joe Estevez was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan, before being cast as the titular "Soultaker".)?
  • I have a comment for this sentence (Vivian Schilling said the movie was successful in theaters but flopped in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas.). The word "flopped" seems too informal to me. Maybe something like "said the movie was successful in theaters except in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas" would be better?
  • TV Guide should be in italics.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Blockbuster Entertainment gave the film two stars, while VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever by Jim Craddock gave it one and a half stars.). Did either reviewer provide more commentary beyond the score?
  • Should the lead mention the positive reviews for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode?
  • I am a little confused by the structure of the "Reception" section. The first paragraph focuses on the negative reviews, but the second paragraph jumps from a positive review to comparisons to Ghost. Would it be better to move the positive Billboard review with the sentence on the award to have a paragraph on its positive reception and then have the second paragraph focus on these Ghost comparisons instead?
  • I would wikilink Netflix.
  • I have a comment about this part (the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness"). The quote from the source goes on to specify that these layers occur "when we meet the soultaker's boss, the Angel of Death". Shouldn't this be specified in the article?
    • Didn't think of that. Added it.

Again I hope this helps. I will have to check this film sometime soon. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, I support this for promotion. It was a very fun and interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Verifiability: No spotchecks carried out
  • Links
  • Refs 2 and 6: the links are returning an error message: "The page isn't redirecting properly". Please check these out – it may be a local or temporary problem
  • All other links to sources are working properly
  • Formats
  • ref 14 has hyphen in page range
  • ref 18 is missing retrieval date

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open over a month and appears to have stalled. I'm prepared to leave it little longer to see if Josh or Rapunzel have anything further, and I'll add to FAC Urgents, but if nothing much changes in the next week I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to stand in the way of promotion if others think this is ready, but this still feels more GA than FA to me. I think the writing could be a bit smoother and more could be drawn from the various sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my internet's a bit spotty in the tower in the forest. ;) Unfortunately, I do feel as though I do not have enough experience with the FA process to be able to give a worthwhile and informed opinion. I'm very sympathetic to the article because I suspect there's not a lot of material out there on this particular film, so I've been going back and forth on what would be a reasonable amount of coverage for this article; a quick JSTOR search seems to confirm my suspicions. And it does seem as though the nominator has done the best with the little information available and made good use of the few historical and retrospective sources available. I'm a bit iffy on the prose, but I also have very high standards. Again, unfortunately, I don't have enough FA experience to add anything worthwhile to the discussion. Sorry. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]
  • Support - I saw this one was listed as urgent; so I'll take a look. Although I'm more into super bad horror films than just bad ones (w/e).

Other than that, seems promotable to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I believe I answered your comments. Also I would recommend watching the Mystery Science Theater episode on Soultaker. Really funny watch for fans of bad movies. GamerPro64 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll change to support. I'd prefer a slightly longer lede on the FA, but there's not much I can think to add. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Soultaker.jpg: Boilerplate but OK licensing.
  • File:Joe Estevez.jpg: I have to wonder about the provenance of the file and the other files from this Flickr user; no EXIF, low resolution, the fact that some photos look like screenshots or are actually posters makes me wonder if it's taken/cropped from somewhere else.
No ALT text anywhere, sections seem pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Joe Estevez image be removed then? GamerPro64 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should probably be replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image from the article. But I am not sure if I would be able to find a suitable replacement. GamerPro64 20:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately not much has happened here since Ian's remark two weeks ago that it's stalled. It just doesn't have the consensus required for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Soultaker_(film)/archive1&oldid=902313536"