Talk:Tideland (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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian cinema task force

Contents 1 reaction 2 NPOV? 3 Amorous feelings were reversed... 4 Spoilers in article 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Tideland (poster).gif 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Tideland cover.jpg

[edit] reaction

"horrendous slash(/) excellent"? the @#$% does that mean? neither word would be appropriate, anyway, as (1) 'horrendous' would imply the reviewers sucked, (2) 'excellent' would imply that any were very favorable, and (3) neither of these extreme characterizations belongs in an encyclopedia without some serious justification. if i didn't suspect y'all looked down on such actions, i'd delete the section wholesale.

[edit] NPOV?

I felt the "critical reaction" section was getting a little POV and tried to tone it down a little, only to have all my changes immediately reverted by an anonymous user. Instead of getting into a revert war over an article I have nothing invested in, I'll list what I think might be problematic and hopefully other people can step in and decide what might or might not need to be changed.

• The text implies several times that "discerning moviegoers" have embraced the film. This is based on the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Amazon. Not only does this seem unencylopedic, but they look pretty mediocre to me (the IMDB score, for example is the lowest of any Gilliam film other than Jabberwocky, and virtually all DVDs on Amazon get at least 3.5 stars).

You're simply incorrect about the IMDB score: Brothers Grimm stands below Tideland at 5.9, Jabberwocky 6.1, with Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen both at 6.9 just barely above Tideland. "Discerning moviegoers" was used in the context of mentioning Rotten Tomatoes and movie blogs. Perhaps a better word than "discerning" could have been used and, in fact, I'll remove it altogether in favor of "registered". However, I'll point out that the intent of its usage wasn't meant to suggest those moviegoers were more "discerning" than the critics; rather, it was meant to convey the fact that the RT and movie blog users were more invested than your average moviegoer. As for calling the IMDB score mediocre or unimportant, I will take issue with that, especially when we're talking about 6.7 out of 10 users favoring a film that has largely been regarded as universally disliked (that's 3,173 IMDB user votes, by the way...hardly a mediocre number for a film that hasn't been widely seen until its recent DVD release). Honestly, I don't much care for the film myself, but I do believe that, in this case, the divide between the audience and the critics is an important part of its story. Or, perhaps, the comprise would be to remove the entire Rotten Tomatoes reference altogether. As for the Amazon mention, I suspect to have it there or not doesn't matter one way or the other. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

• The info about box office receipts was deleted, even though I had sourced it at boxofficemojo.com.

I don't believe I deleted that, but if I did it was a mistake. It should be there. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

• The statement that the film was popularly and critically successful in Japan needs to be sourced.

Agreed. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

• Listing the scores of all of Owen Gleiberman's other Gilliam reviews, while factually correct, seems intended to imply that the critic is somehow incapable of giving Gilliam a "fair" review (or if not, why is it all there?). The statement that Roeper and Scott had given Gilliam positive reviews of his previous work was deleted.

It might seem to you that the implication is that Gleiberman can't give Gilliam a "fair" review, or it might seem, as it does to me, that he liked Tideland much less than other Gilliam films he has reviewed. As for the Roper & Scott additions that were deleted, I don't believe I took issue with this information and removed it. That said, aside from Roeper's slightly favorable review of Brothers Grimm, what other films by Gilliam have he and Scott given positive reviews? I couldn't find a single one. If you want it there you need to source that information somehow. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

• Statements aattributed to Gilliam need to be sourced.

Agreed. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

--142.103.211.144 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amorous feelings were reversed...

Events take on an even darker tone when Dickens's amorous feelings for the much younger Jeliza-Rose start to creep into their child-like relationship

I thought that it was Jeliza who initiated that in a sort of child-play way, and Dickens was uncomfortable with it at first? Brentt 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just seen the film, I think a better way to express these edgy scenes would be:

"Another elemwnt of dramatic tension is added as the chaste love between Jeliza-Rose and Dickens begins to find physical expression."

I leave this as a suggestion, should anyone else agree that this would impeove the article, 71.55.106.189 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers in article

The article needs a spoiler warning! The ending of the film is revealed.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tideland (poster).gif

Image:Tideland (poster).gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tideland cover.jpg

Image:Tideland cover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)