Talk:The Devil's Advocate (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction 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 assessment scale.

Contents 1 National Cathedral Lawsuit 2 Ex nihilo 3 Resemblances? 4 Naked Connie Nielson Pic 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Devils advocate ver2.jpg 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Pacino-devils.jpg 7 Copy edit 8 Edits of 2008-05-20

[edit] National Cathedral Lawsuit

Is the sculpture referred to in the movie the one that shows, while Lomax and Milton discuss the 'familial union', various people engaged in sexual activity? If so, I can certainly attest that it has not been edited out of all the TV versions as the article states. -Joshuapaquin 08:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that clarifying information has been inserted. So, problem solved. -Joshuapaquin 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the legal information. No judgement was ever handed down, a settlement was reached. Unaltered versions were also for sale, with the sticker. Once the altered versions were made, the sticker was removed. Oogles 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ex nihilo

The Ex nihilo linked from this page is not the one referred to in the article. Am I wrong? Paul Haymon 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- It was a definition of the term and not a link to the art - but see that was changed :) Oogles 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resemblances?

Cut this:

The film's storyline resembles that of That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis. In that, a scientific institution (the N.I.C.E.) is changed to a law firm (Milton, Chadwick, and Waters), and a young philologist is changed to a young lawyer (Kevin Lomax).In the novel by Lewis, the Devil never has a human appearance. Instead, he uses other ways to communicate with his subordinate humans.

This is an extreme stretch: can't think of any other analyses of the film to make this connection. I believe it should be dropped under the "personal essays/original criticism" rationale. Ellsworth 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naked Connie Nielson Pic

It's really getting old. You did the same thing to "Connie Nielsons" page.

Firstly, I don't care about nudity. She's hot, and a pretty funny pic. So I have no "agenda" here.

1 The naked pic isn't even relevent. It's like 2 seconds of the whole film. The main point, my OPINION would be, that the film makers used as the shocking conclusion and devil-driven point of view. (Such as Connie mocking the classical crucifix pose, one leg over other, arms out, head to side)

2. How about we edit every single movie where anyone showed their ass for 2 seconds and put that in there? To meet this can say "Look here, Connie Nielson took her clothes off in this movie!!!!" It's like editing every movie brad pitt has been in and showing his ass. It's just... pointless.

Can we edit the "alexander" movie for the split second his nutsack was shown?

3 It's described as "seduction", yet that occured during the film, such as on Milton's balcony or Elevator, or Kevins fantasies/supernatural halicinations pretending his wife was her.

4 You've done the same thing to Connie Nielsons page, too, dunno why, same image, I mean.

5 I even replaced it with a pic that shows the "final" sexual seduction, with actually Keanu in frame too. Which you also took out for favor of your pic. For some unknown reasons. Maybe you like tits? However, that has nothing to do with encyclopedic description of this film.

Give it a rest man. Really. It sad, at this point.

Oogles 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, it's reverted to your version. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Devils advocate ver2.jpg

Image:Devils advocate ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pacino-devils.jpg

Image:Pacino-devils.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

Hi, I took you up on your offer to look over the article. Looks pretty good so far, but I did stumble on this sentence: Ultimately, he wins the case after harshly questioning the young witness (Heather Matarazzo) and reveals that she had other children lie about Gettys, though her explanation is that "she didn't want to be the only one" to come forward. Not completely clear but I'm guessing what was meant is something like Ultimately, he wins the case after his harsh questioning of the young witness (Heather Matarazzo) reveals that she had other children lie about Gettys, though her explanation is that she "didn't want to be the only one" to come forward. (I also moved the quotation mark as she probably didn't actually say "she" but "I".) Gr8white (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, pretty sure it's correct. Gr8white (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome. Even though we disagree at times, I appreciate your contributions and editing skills :) (Now to look over the edits and then flame ya :) Oogles (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. At one point Ex Nihilo linked to the sculpture, but that's seemingly been done away with. Likely for same reasons as done away with in movie :p (tho to wiki fair use image standards), but dead link now, and no one describes the sculpture, just explaination of the term "Ex Nihilo" which isn't really relevent to this article. (Unless you get into talking why that sculpture was used, but not relevent to legal information) Oogles (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, her statement was "I didn't want to be the only one" after Kevin revealed through questioning she had other children lie about Mr. Gettys. Oogles (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been continuing to watch and correct errors as they are added, but I'm wondering how much more the plot summary is going to be expanded. It's supposed to be a summary, if this keeps up we might as well have the entire script. Gr8white (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... I thiunk I'm about done. Is there a guideline as to how much the Plot secion for a movie page should contain? --J-Star (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not very specific, but The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29)

Not sure if there's anything more specific w/ regard to movies. Gr8white (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here it is: Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot.[1] Current word count is 1480. Gr8white (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of 2008-05-20

Making many edits so I thought it best to explain some them since we have a revert-war brewing:

• "He is also having fantasies" -> "He is also having oddly realistic fantasies". A major point of that scene is that it is not he himself that dreams it up, but that he is actually seeing Christabella before him.
• "finding Kevin's name in the company papers as a new partner" -> "finding Kevin's name in the company papers as a partner". Eddie specifically says that "it's like it's been there forever". The fact that Kevin doesn't think he was a partner matters little since Milton all along intended for Kevin to head the firm, as is revealed in the final scenes. "Well Eddie was right, I want you to take over the firm".
• "convinced" -> "mollified". Look it up... it describes the conversation very well I think. Kevin isn't trying to convince Eddie that it is not true but rather tries to calm him down... i.e. mollify him.
• "Mary Ann senses this from her apartment window" -> "Mary Ann sees this from her apartment window". The apartment is directly accross from Central Park, as said by the neighbours when showing the apartment. They also say "Great for jogging", a Chekov's gun for when Eddie is jogging.
• Reinstanting the entire paragraph on Cullen's assistant. It was a prepartion for the testimony, not an interview; and Milton again tested Kevin by offering him to step away from the case, as revealed by the end scenes. "And Cullen, knowing he was guilty, seeing those pictures, what did you do?! You put that lying bitch on the stand". It is important to point out that Kevin was given a choice.

Apart from that I don't think we need to chase words any more. Yes we are above the 900-word limit but exceptions can be made for complex plots. --J-Star (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)