Talk:National Treasure: Book of Secrets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Treasure: Book of Secrets is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Remember to keep these pages with a neutral POV. this isn't a fan site. Oldag07 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Historic Locations

Where did they say that Mount Vernon would appear in the film? Just out of curiosity. Microbyte 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

they were filming there in March/April. **spoiler** they kidnap the president while he's at his own birthday party at Mt. Vernon. NYyankees51 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh... Okay... So the actual birthday party and kidnapping was at Mount Vernon. Cool! Microbyte 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not totally sure but that's most likely the case, so yes :) NYyankees51 15:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic Locations Removal

I went ahead and put this list back in, because it wasn't inaccurate or false. I added references just for technicality, because it's kind of obvious that they would have come from the trailer. I don't see how this warranted removal; request for a reference maybe, but not removal... Microbyte 14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Rating

I went ahead and undid an edit by an anonymous user who said that the film was rated PG-13. (Be aware that I made the same mistake before.) It was reported as rated at certain sites (Especialy part of the apple.com trailer site), but the majority of sites report it as unrated, therefore that is probably true. Both the MPAA site and the updated official National Treasure site still say it's unrated. Just to let you know why I did that. : ) Microbyte 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to turn into an edit war with an anonymous user. If this occurs again, I'll be looking for intervention (And not continuing this edit war). Microbyte 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I did once change it from unrated to PG-13, but I didn't change it on the 16th.....after Apple put "unrated" I realized how stupid it was, because they aren't even done filming yet, so how can there be a rating? :P NYyankees51 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, I did the exact same thing when I saw that on the single page of the Apple site. I was just getting frustrated because it felt like the same person was doing it (similar IP range), but they were still anonymous, so I couldn't post on their talk page. Actually, it might be possible for it to be rated, as it's in post-production. (They may be finishing it up already) And from a fan perspective, the rating posted on that one page wasn't for sure accurate, but it may at least give us an indication of what they're thinking they'll get. That's just my take on it, though. Microbyte 18:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they still have a few days in France left to do....they're supposed to film there; I don't know when/if they're doing it :). But NT1 was a success because it was good for the whole family. They may go the way of POTC, but NT1 earned $350,000,000 mostly because of that......anyway, it's gonna be awesome :):)!!!!!! NYyankees51 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if there is still stuff left, it probably is more minor shots, or even B-Roll type stuff. I know what you mean. A sequel might not be best for the series, and it may have certain things that people could complain about, but I'm still pumped about it! :D But yeah, we can't report on something that isn't official yet. ; ) Microbyte 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggested article edits

based on observations from other film articles:

  • remove all YouTube video links. Why? because YouTube links are not necessarily valid WP references.
  • remove the trailer section per appropriate WP policy
  • remove discussion about purchased website URLs. Are those really necessary?

Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Plot

The Plot section is terrible written and thoroughly misspelled. A good writer needs to go in and completely redo it, if possible. In the mean time, I will do all I can for spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.230.213 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this is in the relevant section, but there seems to be some confusion as to whether Abigail is Ben's estranged girlfriend or his ex-wife. Clarification would be much appreciated.68.145.227.159 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


The plot section should note in some way that the film never explains WHY the discovery of Cibola clears Gates's ancestor of being involved in the plot against Lincoln. Or, if someone has figured out a possible connection, the plot section could be updated to include this crucial detail. A description of the plot that simply says "Gates clears his family name with the discvoery" but doesn't connect these dots (or, at least, point out that the film never does either) is not up to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.238.194 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clues and Meanings

The description of the "Laboulaye Lady" clue says that Laboulaye is the sculptor of the statue of Liberty. However, Wikipedia's own article on Laboulaye states that he was not. Gates states that "he only called one his lady" but I can find no factual reference to that either. Perhaps the clue info could be clarified to at least indicate the difference between the real facts and the facts as portrayed by the characters. Kimmerkc (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical basis for film

Could we have a section like this dealing with:

  • The real legend of the City of Gold,
  • The Lincoln assassination,
  • British support for the Confederates, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Upland (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Mt Vernon,
  • Mt Rushmore,
  • Resolute desks,
  • Statues of Liberty etc?

--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No need -- just wikilink the appropropriate terms the first time they appear. SpikeJones (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reviews

This section is very difficult to maintain right now. While typing this, it said there were 13 reviews; and upon loading the reference there were 20, and after reloading 2 minutes later, 21 reviews. I think this section needs to wait, atleast until it cools down in the box office, so I'm deleting it. Grsz11 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because information is rapidly changing doesn't mean you should remove it. Why don't you just update it? ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goofs

Why was this deleted. There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the movie. It is not biased in one way or another, just a "goof-up". It's fun, and trivial, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be on wikipedia. SvWrestler (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it's trivial, trivia is for IMDb. Please see this page. --JpGrB 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then in that case, okay. Just wanted to make sure. SvWrestler (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hatnote - opening paragraph - What is this film about and WHAT IS THE BOOK OF SECRETS

I had added a Wikipedia:Hatnote link to the disambiguation page Book of Secrets. I respectfully disagree with the assertion, "this is unneeded as no one would confuse "NATIONAL TREASURE book of secrets" with something else". Google search does exactly that. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The top five search results for "book of secrets" are National Treasure: Book of Secrets, The Book of Secrets, Book of Secrets (album), The Book of Secrets (novel), and The Book of Mysteries. Those are five out of six of the links on that page. And as I said before, no will go to National Treasure Book of Secrets looking for one of the other articles. It's just unnecessary to put it at the top of the article. The Book of Secrets deserves a disambig notice as some people may be looking for this movie there. The Book of Mysteries also possibly may need one, as some people may be looking there also. Even people who think that the movie is based on a book could be looking at The Book of Secrets (novel). However, no clear thinking person can honestly say that anyone will come here looking for one of those. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
ColdFusion650, Please go to http://www.Google.com, put in the two words "book" "secrets" or the phrase "book of secrets" and see what turns up. Also, Ad hominem statements are not effective talking points. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk:ColdFusion650)
I'm fully capable of doing a Google search. This also falls under Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
ColdFusion650, I wanted to find out, knowing already about the movie, what exactly is the "Book of Secrets" that is part of the movie title. There is no article about the fictional movie prop in Wikipedia (yet). There is currently only one sentence about the book in this article. There are a number of articles that use the phrase, including probably the most enlightening article about the Macedonian movie that mentions the existence of a different (and more ancient) Secret Book. This is not Wikipedia:NAMB. Nevertheless, It would go a long way to offer some constructive criticism as to where it would be useful to have an explanation of the plot device and whether such a real life counterpart exists. I already have created the disambiguation page and placed the same phrase on all the other pages. I also fixed back the Macedonian movie page. Please use your powers for good to fill in a Book of Secrets section in this article. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation notices at the top are for an instance where an article title could be interpreted for two different subjects. It is not for "See here for more information about a similar subject," which based on your first sentence is what you are thinking. A link to such an article would either be in the body or under "See also". The lack of information on the actual book is mainly because not much information is given in the movie. If more information can be found, it would probably only be enough to fill a section in this article. However, if enough information is exists, it could warrant an article of its own. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ColdFusion650, A paraphrasing of "The lack of information on the actual book is mainly because not much information is given in the movie." belongs in the article, along with "what are things also called books of secrets?" The lead paragraphs for this article should be able to answer the question "Why is it called National Treasure Book of Secrets?" It should be able to say which book of Secrets, and it should be clear before the table of contents that it is neither about the Book of Mysteries nor (!) the Heavy metal album by Balance of Power. A line from the previous movie article would be a starting point for the third paragraph "It is an adventure movie set in the USA about a search for _ (fabled city) _ in (George Washington's) (nose), involving _ _ (totally cool Book which I would like to know more about but have no help so far from subject matter experts) _ (.) _ " When I went to Google and you put in Book of secrets, the movie article comes up highest for Wikipedia. OK fine, click on National Treasure:Book of Secrets and hey, nothing about an actual book of secrets. OK start searching more fine tuning of google searching, hmm more articles...including a broken one...who named these anyway?...OK disambiguate. Interesting, there was an ancient book of secrets, but what is the presidential book of secrets? ... Maybe someone else who comes to this article wants to know what the real book of secrets is? Hmm, 2004 article does have a disambiguation for National Treasure. The ambiguity in this article is not with National Treasure (cleared up in the 2004 movie article), it is with Book of Secrets. Instead of blocking out stuff you don't like, put in the helpful information that belongs. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend that I understand what your trying to say. If the statement in your first sentence can be worked in well, then do it. However, a note on the lack of information is not information itself, nor if it were would it be notable enough for inclusion. The question in your second sentence, while warranting another search on Wikipedia by the user, does not mean the article should include information on books completely unrelated to the article except its name. As to what should be included in the lead: The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen the film. I have not seen its predecessor. I came for information and left wanting. That is due to a lack of helpful content that I cannot supply. A link to other secret books was helpful to me. Since capital letters seem to have an impact, let me ask WHAT DOES National Treasure BOOK OF SECRETS MEAN? Yea, IT IS A SECRET BOOK. We get that. It's probably the McGuffin of the movie, although that is not apparent from this article. If I were to compare the opening paragraph of Halloween III: Season of the Witch, a featured article about another film I have not seen, it is evident the article is not wholly bound by those rules stated above. Group29 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And Happy New Year! Group29 (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know what the Book of Secrets is, the article clearly states "According to Riley, the Book of Secrets contains documents collected by Presidents for Presidents' eyes only, covering such controversial subjects as the JFK assassination, Watergate, and Area 51." So, by "not apparent from this article", you mean not in the first paragraph. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the book is such a minor part of the overall plot that it really doesn't warrant this much discussion on the topic, let alone a description of the book in the opening paragraph. What the book is or isn't is already covered in the article text. What is being proposed here would be akin to putting some redirect to other types of hope at the beginning of the Star Wars IV: A New Hope article, as there may be other types of hope that someone would be looking for.SpikeJones (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Library of Congress location and MediaWiki cameo?

In the film, two things stood out to me that I expected Wikipedia to know about. First, the actual Library of Congress numbers and what is actually filed in that location in the real Library of Congress (probably something completely unrelated but the fact is of interest - I'm curious) and second, in a brief glimpse of the screen of Riley's laptop during the Buckingham Palace scene in which Riley is looking up the Queen's birthday, we see a web page with a dark blue background that basically looks like it was adapted from the Monobook Mediawiki skin. Does that page actually exist online anywhere or is it just a copy of Wikipedia's content? Just wondering. --75.43.31.181 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a question about the content of the Library of Congress article, you may be better served by asking your article-specific question on that discussion page. As for your other question about the movie itself, you may want to try a movie discussion board, such as those found over at IMDB. Hope this helps point you in a direction to find what you are looking for. SpikeJones (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Origins of the President's Book of Secrets conspiracy theory. I'm almost sure I'd heard of it prior to the movie. Are there any real books like the imaginary one written by Riley that talk(ed) about a President's Book of Secrets prior to the movie? --75.43.31.181 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia. At first I thought it was because it does indeed have the same basic layout. But instead of the Wikipedia logo it has some off brand name. Without being sure it's based on Wikipedia, I don't think we can include it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if it's a real web page, and if so, then the article should link to it. I've been doing searches to find the Library of Congress number in the film. Of course, I don't remember the number having only seen the film once, but I thought some web site might have it. None of my searches have come through so far. --75.43.31.181 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to find the real page, watch the movie again. I know the title of the site is clearly visible, although I don't remember what it is. Then just search the internet to see if such a site exists. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(sorry, i dont know how to use the discussion very well) i remember the number from the movie, its XY234 is the section, 3794 is the actual book number. the website was something like look-info.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.88.216.104 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the book number was XY234786. The entry code on the electronic lock was 3794. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.238.194 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel?

Is there another National Treasure movie in the works? If not, what was on page 47? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.184.62 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ask your question on a movie discussion board, instead. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Good luck in your search. SpikeJones (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be ("secret") advertising campaign Whats On Page 47, so I guess that means sequel (and no, they are not paying me for this (unfortunately...)).--91.153.25.56 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheney?

Imdb.com does not state Cheney as part of this movie. Is the credit here a joke, or true? 212.251.133.163 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had reverted that days ago. Apparently something happened. Fixed now. Whether he was in it or not, a 2 second cameo does make him part of the "cast". ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total Gross

I don't know who keeps changing the article to say "[it] grossed $133,263,682 worldwide, making it the tenth highest grossing film of 2007", but that's just silly. $133 million wouldn't break the top 40. The movie is ranked among 2007 films because it was released in 2007. Its ranking is determined by total profit regardless of year, that includes 2008. It is ranked in the top 10 films because of its $451 million gross. The article does not state it made $451 million in 2007. It states that it made $451 million dollars, which puts in the top 10 films of (read as: which were released in) 2007. I didn't realize this was such a complicated issue, but I hope this clears things up. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me that the entire sentence (perhaps paragraph) is incorrect. It currently reads It stayed at number one for 17 days before dropping to number two, and grossed $451,923,952 worldwide, making it the tenth highest grossing film of 2007. The point is, how much of that money was made in 2007? It opened at the end of December 07, so it couldn't be "the top grossing film of 2007" at all, unless it earned all that money in those final days (which you say it didn't). My question to you, since you seem to know and/or care about that portion of the article, is what exactly are you trying to say? My your logic, the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope article would need to be adjusted to say that it has earned $460m, making it the top grossing film of 1977, even though a chunk of that money came from subsequent re-releases over the next 20+ years. If you mean the article to say that it has earned $xx, then that's fine. Make sure the opening paragraph is adjusted accordingly to, as that reference is only about the number of days it took to surpass the original film's earnings, not the total earnings overall. SpikeJones (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the cited source, Box Office Mojo, it is the 10th highest grossing movie worldwide for 2007. That figure is based on a total gross of $451 million. So, changing it to $133 million is just wrong. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I've been able to bring it to your attention, please re-read all the paragraphs that refer to revenue and make sure that they are contextually correct. There was one sentence that was continually being updated, even though the sentence was referring to only the first 38 days of release. Sometimes it takes editing with a giant eraser to get people to notice that something is amiss on the page overall. SpikeJones (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything looks good. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change?

Disney has it as National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets on its website[1]; any explanations out there (like distribution wise like how Ice Age sequels were marketed, and should it be mentioned in the article? Islandtimes (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, we have it as that too. Or did you mean something else? RC-0722 247.5/1 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
He means, why is there no "2" in the article title? The short answer is this: there is no 2 in the movie's title. Watch the movie, or just look at the poster in the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think they did add that for the DVD titles. They didn't market the theatrical release as that, though. I don't know which would be best for the article. I'd personally pefer just National Treasure: Book of Secrets, but that's just me. Microbyte (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Treasure 3

I added just a release date for the sequel, since it's been listed in pre-production at IMDB Pro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.66.149 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it was reverted already but maybe we could add a sequel section that talks about the development of a part 3. I found some links and if anybody wants I could try to write something up using the links I found or someone else could write it. Here are some links I found
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1697907/ (I think is will be an ok source to cite)
http://hitsusa.com/blog/406/national-treasure-3-page-47/ (this one is a blog so I am not sure if we could use it) Rosario lopez (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)