Talk:The Truman Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Truman Show has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Truman Show article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Based on previous fiction

There was a 50's or 60's radio drama, possibly also a pulp short story, about a man who discovers that his entire town is infact populated by robots, including himself, and that they are used to test products and advertising, he discovers this in a secret tunnel and tv studio, the name could be "none of them knew they were robots",- this so needs to be included in the references other fiction section. If this work is listed and i missed it, apologies. Book M 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Links

The links are too biased into the gnostic/christian point of view, instead of other issues of struggle of freedom or search for the ultimate truth that the movie covers.

[edit] Plot needs editing

The first five paragraphs of the plot section are a blow-by-blow account of the movie, up to the point where Truman starts realising something is wrong. The next three act as if the first five never existed, and give a quick summary of the entire plot.

I recommend deleting the first five paragraphs, since the first three do the same job better. Crimson Shadow 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems the plot has been given a bit of a work-over. Good job. Suppose you can disregard this now. Crimson Shadow 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the plot section have spoiler warnings? It covers pretty much the entirety of the movie. 203.171.97.136 02:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a new policy for spoilers per WP:SPOILERS where , in articles about fictional works, sections titled "Story" or "Plot" implicitly carry a spoiler warning. Putting spoilers in would thus be redundant. --Masem 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is stupid.

This article is ridiculous, why only the gnostic/christian interprentantions when there can be a lot of multiple ones that is just as valid. A christian analysis is not the ONLY perspective on this movie. The interprentations of the actors roles too, is also very bad and singlehandly analyzed. They do not belong on this page, post more different interprentations or remove all.

If there are other interpretations, please feel free to add them. If not, then please enlighten me as to why the current interpretations should be deleted. And don't forget to sign your comments. Crimson Shadow 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the special edition, it is actually revealed that Christof is being portrayed as, if not the Christian God, then at least having god-like powers, and sometimes almost acting as if he believes he IS God (within Seahaven). Harley Quinn hyenaholic 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that depending on your religious viewpoint, it may mean something completely different to YOU. As a Buddhist, to me The Truman Show represents our dreamlike state of unreality, one that we create by ourselves (or even created for us?) you can discuss this further, however the real intention will only be known once the writer of the story tells us what the intention of Christof actually was. God or God-like? Who really knows?--Read-write-services 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative ending

From the article, I read:

One alternative ending was less hopeful than the one that made it to release.

What happened in the "less hopeful ending"?

WpZurp 04:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I bought the DVD yesterday, but it wasn't on that (not on my version, anyway). I'll try having a bit of a look around on the Internet to see what I can find. - Vague | Rant 08:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
As it is, that sentence doesn't seem to flow either... should it be left as it is, rewritten, or (until more information can be found) simply removed on the basis that it lends nothing whatsoever to the article? Estel (talk) 12:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
You could say that about a lot of 1 or 2 sentence "paragraphs" in Wikipedia articles. ✈ James C. 19:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well.. If you search "truman" on (URL removed, domain squatters)you get an "unspecified draft" and a "1998 draft", with quite different endings.Frencheigh 05:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wow, 3 messages concerning the alternative ending and none of them actually mention it.
Anyways, in the alternative ending Truman escapes his sound stage (in this script there's no giant dome, just discrete stage buildings) and confronts Christof personally on the roof. Truman snatches the envelope from Christof, and looking at the photo "a serenity comes over Truman." The camera pulls back until Truman becomes a speck on the roof of a sound stage. The next shot shows Marlon and a new wife with a baby, with the words "ZOE - Total Record of a Human Life" appearing on the screen. Switching to real-life, the real-world Truman turns off the TV. Truman, Sylvia and their daughter leave the house and approach the beach. ✈ James C. 19:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

what's in the envelope? Back ache 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I removed the sentences mentioning the alternative ending because they did not concern "interpretations" of the movie. They certainly did not conclude the section as the last sentences of a section should. ✈ James C. 19:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Other

Hi, just watched the film and noticed that one of the callers to the phone in with Christoph idenifies themself (they actually hang up before they speak, or are stopped from speaking) as 'the hague'. Possibly a reference to Truman's 'inhumane' treatment at the hands of the corporation, 'The Hauge' being a place in the Netherlands where crimes against humanity are tried. Thought this could possibly be added to the 'other' section. --Hazy 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hazy, that's ridiculous. Sort your life out!

Dear anonymous editor. In future, please refrain from making such inane comments about other editors. And if you do feel that it is ridiculous, then please say why you think so. To be honest, I believe it is valid, and makes sense. Crimson Shadow 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall of China

What's with the random "wall of China" statement under goofs? It seems very out of context, offering no correlation to the movie. --RcSamurai 17:00, 30 October 2005

It says in the film that the studio is one of the few man-made structures visible in space, along with the Great Wall. I agree that it needs clarifying though. violet/riga (t) 23:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of Christof

The article sometimes says Christof and sometimes Christoff. I'm too lazy to find the true spelling! Pelago 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In the opening credits it is spelled "Cristof" Rusty2005 16:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Interpretation section

Isn't this section way too long? It seems as if someone has hijacked the article for a religious discourse, when this clearly isn't the place. I suggest the section is severely trimmed down, and links are provided to the supposed external analysis that is referred to here. 'Original research' is prohibited on Wikipedia, and I'd say conjecture on similarities between movies and Christianity come under that unless evidence can be found this is mere reporting of others' opinions. And if it can be found, I say we link it and leave it out of the article. Either that, or move it to a separate article, e.g. The Truman Show And God. Pipedreambomb 08:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Goofs" section: copyvio?

The "Goofs" section in this article appears to be mostly copy/pasted from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/goofs If this is the case, then it is a copyright violation. Does anybody disagree with this assessment? --Takeel 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Trivia" section also may have similar copyright violation issues based on this URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/trivia Again, does anybody disagree? --Takeel 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Trivia" section appeared to be salvageable, so I have attempted to resolve its copyright violation problems. --Takeel 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Since no disagreements have been mentioned here, I have removed the "Goofs" section because it is almost a complete copy-paste from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/goofs. --Takeel 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity / Original Research

I would question why on earth there are so many connections to Christianity on this page. It's not that I think they are impossible to make - but it mostly looks like original research. If it isn't, these interpretations of the movie should be referenced. mgekelly 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly what I was thinking. Looks like whoever wrote the Christian stuff has been reading far too deeply into the film and looking for religious connections that aren't there. Some of the religious "links" written about seem pretty tenuous. The only religious link I picked up on was Christof's booming voice at the end. Rusty2005 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Irrespective of our opinions on the interpretations, they do constitute original research which shouldn't be on wikipedia.Loodog 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your hostility to Christianity is noted. I question the section on the supposed inclusion of Gnostic themes, "There are elements of theology and ontology present in The Truman Show. Some believe it draws heavily on themes of Gnosticism," as it includes weasel words. "Some" out to be cited. However, I find no fault whatsoever with the principal author's explication of the Truman Show, as the themes he explores are worth some discussion. As for the author reading too much into the story, Rusty2005, I feel you are likely casting about in the opposite direction: reading anything else you can into the story, one that has blatant religious and philosophical themes, at least to someone with a modicum of education.

  • Anonymous editor, if what you say is obvious to someone with a modicum of education you should be able to provide cites to numerous authors who have written about it. Please provide them.
  • And in general, I think the 'Character Names' section is equally OR. It is filled with guesses as to why the screenwriter's gave the characters the names they did, but not a single cite. It needs to be sourced or removed. Ashmoo 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep it civil people. Regardless of what was actually intended by the creators of the movie, ANY interpretation by you or me is original research. Feel free to include any readings of the movie if cited from a published (or otherwise reputable) source.Loodog 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • In keeping with the Be Bold! guidelines I've trimmed the Christianity sections. I've left in references which tie in to the film itself (no matter how tenuous) but have taken the liberty of chopping out bits which have an extremely weak link to the film, eg: the Bible quote about "night being my hiding place", or whatever it was. I really don't think that the stuff I've chopped was suitable for inclusion in this article. Rusty2005 13:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to include an analysis of this movie that relates it to Christianity, here is one (extensive) source that you can work from to ensure that you do not stray into original research:

I would be surprised if that were the only one. Uncle G 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Garden of Eden is a common theme in Peter Weir's films. See Picnic at Hanging Rock, Mosquito Coast, Green Card, etc. I see no reason why there should be a Christianity section since this myth is shared by several different religions. Winick88 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

It says that Harry Shearer plays Michael Jackson. This is most likely false. 69.157.102.42 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I found it quite amusing when I read that... it's 'Mike Michaelson' according to IMdb. I'll go and change it now... RSieradzki 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he plays the host in TruTalk. You can hear Rev. Lovejoy's voice at one point in Harry Shearer's character.Loodog 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Countries in the World

The article states: Although the introductory voiceover for "TruTalk" claims "220 countries tuned in for his first steps", most references only acknowledge there to be 192 countries in the entire world. This is not exactly an error, as List of countries names 243 entities that could be considered countries.

Is the 192 number referenced the number of countries that existed at the time Truman took his first steps, or the number of countries in existence now? For example, when Truman took his first steps, there were an East and West Germany, however, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were one country, as were the many countries which exist now which were once part of countries like Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc.

  • That's a possibility, but I think there's more countries today than during the Soviet era (what with the breakup of the USSR etc), so it's more likely that if Truman took his first steps in the Soviet era, there would have been less than 192 countries then, and certainly not 220 Rusty2005 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Does the film ever stage which era it takes place in anyway? Realistically, building a functional artificial city won't be possible for a while, but probably will in future.--MartinUK (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seahaven

Isn't the name of the town Seahaven, and not the name of the world? I'll be changing this, but please correct me if I'm wrong. --scienceman 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be the name of both the town and the general area - the nuclear station is called "Seahaven Power Plant" even though it's some way out of town, and Mike Michaelson refers to "Seahaven, the world within a world". I doubt it really matters, it's just a name for what's in the dome. Rusty2005 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
They call it "Seahaven Island" a lot, though I imagine the bridge led to 'mainland' i.e. near the dome edge and the 'power plant' is probably where they traffic everything in and out of the dome. NorrYtt 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Posting

At around midnight on 31st July 2006 someone changed one of the 'Trivia' comments to read 'Truman killed Dumbledore', I have removed this. Could the poster of the comment about milliHelens please add it back (I do not wish to paraphrase you) and could someone with authority track and discipline the annoying poster of the Dumbledore comment. Thank you.

[edit] Formal Film Analysis on Wiki?

I have to say, this is an impressive article, if taking an angle to analyze a film like a work of art in a museum text. But is this really what is expected from an encyclopedia's perspective? I suggest that it at least be pared down & not be made the focus of the article. There is simply no substantial element to this movie that would require such thorough research... there is no book-to-movie adaptation question, no measurement of accuracy to a historic event, etc. Forgive me if this is too biased of me, but given the motivation & time, anyone could make an exhaustive analysis such as the one found in this article not just on The Truman Show, but on nearly any film. Experia 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed what I perceive as either original research or someone's point of view (e.g. overly emphasising that Cristof [sic] is utterly evil) + did some general cleanup. The "plot" section is still quite long, but as long as it's factual and neutral, I don't see what would be gained by removing text from it. (If readers are not interested in the plot, they can just skip that section.) --Zoz (t) 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I skimmed it again, you did exactly what I was thinking (if not suggesting clearly enough), thanks. Experia 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This film is analysed, and is studied in formal education systems (Video is currently listed on VCE), articles in this depth is helpful. --Fabiodrn 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source on: Totally Recorded hUMAN life

Totally Recorded hUMAN life, there is no cited link to view the draft notes of the truman show.

[edit] Characters Names

Title is a bit vague and broad. If we are to put the heading, 'Characters names' shouldn't there, then be all characters names with information? Not just characters with significant and meaningful names. --Fabiodrn 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This section seems to be original research. Unless some references can be provided, it should be removed. MaxVeers 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed entire section. If someone wants to provide sources, certain aspects of this section would make interesting reading, but as it stood it was simply original research and speculation. The trivia section is not much better... -- nae'blis 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meryl as a nurse

"(who appears to work as a nurse)" Under the Paranoia title, it says, that Meryl "appears to work as a nurse", however Truman states at 39:18 in the film that, "I am looking for my wife Nurse Burbank, it's very important", which clearly shows that, Meryl is infact a nurse. Hence this statement which makes a leaves Meryl's occupation as inconclusive is false. On the basis of this, I have changed it. Fabiodrn 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

She appears to work as a nurse but is in reality an actress.

"Meryl" is a fictional character (actually a double-fictional character) who is a nurse. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christof recast

On the new "Special Collector's Edition' DVD, the included-documentary has the director mentioning that a 'famous' 'successful' 'pretty good' actor playing Christof was scrapped because it wasn't working, to be replaced by Ed Harris. Anyone see any evidence of who this actor might have been? They're too polite to mention his name on the DVD.

It's Dennis Hopper, according to IMDb. MaxVeers 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feelings of disgust

Hi,

I read the artice after watching the wonderful Trueman Show again. My question relates to the following statement "and in the case of his "wife", bury their real feelings of disgust."

I know to the end of their relationship his wife could no longer hide her feeling, however I'm not sure if it were disgust. Fear or the realisation that her role in this theatre was coming to an end. I can see no evidence that prior to this there had been any feelings of digust - indeed in the special features Laura Linney suggests that the backstory to that character was a money driven business woman.

I am of course open to being corrected and would not want to edit such a well constucted piece without some discussion on the subject.

195.144.135.189 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)dmc24601


Hmm... I think she shows disgust. When she's talking about how wonderful working on the show is she has the same fake smile that she uses to advertise stuff, and in the wedding photos she has her fingers crossed. But then that's y interpretation. Maybe just "bury their real feelings"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.74.12 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is all original research and therefore can't be included in the article.--Loodog (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A- it's still there B- that's why I suggested an alternative ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.117.90 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also/Box Office and Critical Reception

Two things to note here. There are quite a few local links in the see also section of this movie. I think that either they should be limited, a few should be seperated into "inspirations" and "in pop culture" etc sections. Also, there is little information in this article about the critical and commercial reception. The Modern Prometheus 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Short Story

I definately read this as part of a collected work of short science fiction stories -- I took it for granted everyone was familiar with the reference, until we were watching the DVD of The Truman Show and I thought to look it up on Wikipedia. I can't remember the name, author, or compilation (or I'd have just modified the main article). But I remember at least the ending of the plot, where a technition comes to "remove" the many cameras, and pulls "Truman" aside into a camera dead zone to say something like, "You know, if -I- had a successful, multi-million dollar show that depended on the lead actor not knowing what was going on, I might just -tell- him it was over, but not really end it." Getting the hint, "Truman" spends the last paragraph trying to entertain an audience who may or may not be watching. This is distinct from the Phillip K. Dick story as described in the article -- the short story reference I remember is more light hearted and does not involve protecting "Truman" from any kind of war or other turmoil. I would greatly appreciate someone with more researching skills identifying the reference. Kitesawa 04:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

"It is an exposition on freedom, free will and the human desire to experience these states even at the sacrifice of security. The film chronicles the life of a man who does not know that his entire life is a constructed reality soap opera, televised 24-hours-a-day to millions across the globe."

This was originally one sentence, which I preferred:

"An exposition on freedom, free will and the human desire to experience these states even at the sacrifice of security, the film chronicles the life of a man who does not know that his entire life is a constructed reality soap opera, televised 24-hours-a-day to millions across the globe."

Though long sentences adversely affect readability, (which is why they're discouraged by any high school English teacher), it's a far worse offense to harm the coherent flow of a paragraph, especially if two related sentences abut each other, pretending to be oblivious to the other's presence. "It is an exposition on freedom, free will and the human desire to experience these states even at the sacrifice of security." takes a concise well-written sentence, amputates part of it and substitutes a dry stump for a leg.--Loodog 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

Hello. I know this article has just been nominated for GA status, but I have a soft spot for this movie and would like to volunteer for a GA review before someone else snatches the article away from me. Since I am a little low on time at the moment, however, I'll do the review over the next seven days and leave my work-in-progress review below. If you want to fix the article while I am reviewing, this will save you time later.

The article already passes #3 (broad in its coeverage), #4 (neutral), #5 (stable), and #6 (image including Fairuse rationale) of WP:GA?. Reading over the production and release sections, the prose is quite good (haven't read them closely though yet), but I found some (minor) issues with the writing earlier in the article, which you will find below. (You may take the issues marked with a question mark as peer-review-y suggestions that will not influence the promotion to GA.) I will add more later on.

Intro:

  • "The film chronicles the life..." contains the word "life" twice
  • "and Truman Burbank lived in New York City" - propose to change into "and set the story in New York" or something similar to prevent the switch from out-of-universe writing to in-universe writing
  • "and Paramount marketed the film similar to their approach on Forrest Gump." -> "and Paramount's marketing approach for the film was similar to Forrest Gump."

Plot:

  • (?) "All but one of the participants are actors. Only the central character," - the current wording introduces some redundancy
  • The plot section contains plot and an analysis of the plot ("it criticizes greed", "He is an explorer" etc.) - either drop the analysis per WP:OR or find sources for these claims.
  • "it's all fake" -> "it is all fake"
  • (?) "inability to book any trips" -> "the inability to book any trips"
  • "a "leak at the plant"" - what does it mean, why are quotations used (i.e. it is not clear what this means to the reader who hasn't watched the movie)

Characters:

  • "He's unaware that his daily life" -> "He is..."; the same for "isn't"
  • (?) "Weir laughed off the idea." - may sound a little colloquial
  • (?) "his father returns despite apparently drowning." -> "his father returns despite having apparently drowned."

(to be expanded) – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Production:

  • "Niccol quoted," -> "To quote Niccol" or "Niccol stated" (because the current wording suggests that Niccol is quoting someone, not that wikipedia is quoting him)
  • "roughly above $1 million," - it can't be "roughly above" (either it is above or not). It can be "slighly above" though. Also, per WP:MOS#Non-breaking spaces, it should be a " " between $1 and million.
  • "The script was purchased for roughly above $1 million,[7] in fall of 1993[8] by Scott Rudin" -> (1) If you leave this sentence like it is, there should be no comma. (2) Shortly state what Rudin's job is (e.g. American motion picture producer). (3) Consider rewriting this sentence into an active tense, i.e "Scott Rudin purchased the script ..."
  • (?) "the budget would be too expensive" - Can a budget be "expensive" or just "high"?
  • (?) "Weir brought down the original $80 million budget to $60 million." - is there a reason how and why? Also, I suggest the wording "Weir managed to lower..." or "was able to lower" because "brought down" may be a little colloquial
  • The paragraph starting with "Weir felt Niccol's script was took dark..." contains the word "felt" three times. You can create a little variety with "believed", "considered" etc.
  • (?) "...which he allowed the actors to contribute to." - a little awkward. I have no real ideas, but maybe try something like "and encouraged actors to contribute"
  • "Paramount was cautious about The Truman Show" - why (probably the price, but the wording doesn't make this clear)? I also think this sentence (and possibly the next sentene) would work better if moved to the end of the first Production paragraph
  • (?) "Sound stages at Universal Studios were reserved for Seahaven" - maybe repeat here that Seahaven is the setting of the story, e.g. "Sound stages at Universal Studios were reserved for the story's setting of Seahaven". I believe the comma right after this subsentence shouldn't be there
  • ""We took a lot from where characters..."" - state in-text who said this. I think it's also possible without too much effort to rewrite it not using any quotes like "The cinemotographers did this and this for these reasons blablabla", like the last sentence of the paragraph does quote nicely.

Soundtrack:

  • This section is currently a list-in-prose of loosely related facts. This problem can be solved by writing a short introduction like "The soundtrack of The Truman Show was published on Label XYZ on Date. Most songs were composed by Person ABC." Are you aware of any reviews or reviewers' comments about the soundtrack? Was there any discussion about how the soundtrack influenced the movie? (edit: The two last questions are more for expansion to bring this article to FA. If you can write one or two sentences for the questions, that would still be a bonus.)

General:

(I'll do the rest of the article in my third and final review part.) – sgeureka t•c 09:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Themes:

  • "Weir quoted...", see Production "Niccol quoted"

Release:

  • "In March 2000, Turner Broadcasting System purchased the rights, where the film can now often be seen on TBS." -> "In March 2000, Turner Broadcasting System purchased the rights and now often airs the film on TBS." (to avoid a change of the subject/focus in the sentence)
  • "Paramount marketed The Truman Show very similar to their approach on Forrest Gump." - see Intro
  • (?) "The Truman Show was a financial success since it recouped its $60 million budget four times.[19] The Truman Show was the eleventh-highest grossing film of 1998.[20]" - can be combined to "The Truman Show was the eleventh-highest grossing film of 1998,[20] recouping its $60 million budget four times.[19]" (that it is a financial success is therefore obvious and can be dropped)
  • "Based on 83 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes ... from the 30 reviews collected." - the two sentences contain the word "received" three times
  • (?) "In addition he compared Carrey's performance..." and "In addition the film was nominated" - I think there should be a comma after "in addition"
  • (?) A lot of people in the reception section "felt" something. Consider to add more variety like "said", "according to...", "commented", "regarded", "thought", "...saw in..."

The GA review is finished, and I'll put the article on hold. Please address the notes above within the next seven days; the article is on my watchlist and I will see the changes. You can also contact me on my talkpage. Thank you for your work so far. – sgeureka t•c 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the changes are absolutely fine (good job on the Soundtrack section), but this introduced some new issues:

  • "The film chronicles the life of a man" was changed to "The film chronicles a man" to remove the repeating of the word "life". But I don't think a man can be chronicled, just his life. If you can't come up with a solution, please go back to your original wording.
  • The sentence "Weir brought down the original $80 million budget to $60 million." seems to have been dropped completely, and the text jumps from a $80m dollar budget to $60m without any kind of explanation. (Also add   between the numbers and million per WP:MOS#Non-breaking spaces through out the whole text; I had only mentioned this for one example above.)
  • "a "leak at the plant"" - up until five minutes ago, I still thought this referred to peeing on flowers because of the used quotation marks. Make of that what you will. :-)

This should take 10 minutes maximum for fixing. I'll promote then. – sgeureka t•c 08:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Promoted to GA. – sgeureka t•c 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the truman show tenth anniversary

A tenth anniversary is an important staple for any project. Noting that for one day on the day should not be taken down, but allowed to be realized and saluted for all who visit the page on that special day. As long as it is removed immediatley following the strike of midnight there should be no qualms. Part of having an online and up to date encyclopedia is being able to insert and remove such factualties, once again as long as the notation is removed quickly and promptly following the strike of midnight. Mercury71 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)