Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 9 August 2010 [1].

Titanic (1997 film)

[edit]

Titanic (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because since the last time it was nominated, the issues that were in the last one have been cleared up, the article had been revamped/expanded to include more information that isn't too trivial, the page is more organized and uploaded more pictures that help make the article more educational. It is with great pleasure (and thanks to Flyer22, who has agreed to let me proceed with the nomination and help consult during the nomination's course) that I nominate Titanic to be Featured Article again. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixing the dead links. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 08:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Good work on the article so far, it's come a long way. There were a few issues I noticed with a quick look-over.

  • In the lead, to improve the article's flow the single sentence should either be incorporated into another paragraph or be expanded.
  • In the first sentence of the lead, the link to 1997 in film isn't needed. If you want to link to it, a see also section can be added that lists that link (along with any other relevant articles).
  • The plot is currently over 1,000 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT, it should be around 400 to 700 words. See if any subplots or extraneous details can be removed. It's not necessary to link to the actors' names after the character mention since there is a cast list that directly follows the plot.
  • The final sentence in the plot covers possible views on the endings. If there are other sources that touch on this (or that focus on the themes), that would be helpful for starting a new section.
  • In the cameos section, "Greg Ellis cameos as Carpathia Steward. Oliver Page cameos as Steward Barnes." could probably be combined into one sentence.
  • To help justify the inclusion of File:Kate-winslet titanic movie pencil-drawing.jpg, add some details to the caption from the neighboring prose about the drawing (for example, File:Titanic breaks in half.jpg does a good job on linking the readers from the critical commentary in the prose to the caption describing the image). Expanding the FUR on the image's page would also be helpful.
  • Do the same for File:TitanicBaja.jpg, there should be justification as to why the image is being included. Otherwise, it appears decorative.
  • In the box office section, "and ranking #1 at the box office", consider changing to "and ranking number one" or "and ranking first" along with any other occurrences.
  • The heading "Awards and honors" should be "accolades" to be in line with other film articles.
  • I don't think that we can justify keeping File:Titanic5dvd.jpg in the article. Since several home media releases are mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any special reason to include this one over the others. If there was critical reception that focused on the layout of this release or if there was some significant impact of its release, that should be covered in the caption. As it currently stands, it appears decorative (home media non-free images usually are hard to justify).
  • Some of the current citations could use additional parameters, such as author, publisher, access date, etc. Also, for titles of news articles, even if presented in all caps on the website, when sourced they should use standard capitalization (for example, see current citation #15 for Entertainment Weekly).
*For the books included in the "further reading" section, since they are being used as sources, the section should be retitled to "bibliography". Further reading would be for other books or articles that are not used for sourcing information within the article but could be helpful for readers.

Again, it's good to see the article so well-developed, and hopefully the above comments are helpful for addressing a few issues. If any clarification is needed on any of these, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - I've cleared almost all the problems you addressed (I'm working on the citations), but what do you mean by "The final sentence in the plot covers possible views on the endings. If there are other sources that touch on this (or that focus on the themes), that would be helpful for starting a new section"? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A source is included on the last sentence of the plot concerning the two possible perceptions on the ending. If there are other sources available (such as books or critic's reviews) that focus on this, it may be beneficial to start a new section that covers it. If there are also other interpretations on the themes of the film, that could be helpful. For an example, see FA Changeling or GA Avatar. If no other sources are available, it would probably be best to just end the plot as "The final shot of the film is of young Rose being reunited with Jack at the Grand Staircase of the Titanic, surrounded and applauded by those who perished on the ship." Then the remaining bit could be included in the "writing and inspiration" section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done again I couldn't find a reliable source that discussed the ending, so I moved the sentence to "writing and inspiration". Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above issues still have not addressed. The plot could still lose another hundred words or so. I still found a few citations that are missing publishing dates, authors, have incorrect titles, etc. Go through each one to make sure they have all available details. There are also several book citations within the references which are not included in the sources section. The citation for the book Titanic: anatomy of a blockbuster does not list any pages for what is being cited, just the book in general. Seeing that the 200+ page book covers many details about the film, I'm surprised it is not more heavily used throughout the article. A large portion of it is available on Google Books to view, but I would recommend picking it up at the library to help further source the article and reach comprehensive requirements. Since this film is over ten years old, there are multiple books that cover it, and it would be beneficial to exhaust all potential sources, especially if they can touch on themes/sybmolism/the ending. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nehrams2020, looking at the Plot section, I feel that it has been cut as much as it can be without losing vital information. We have to remember that this is a three-hour long film, longer even than Avatar. Likewise, an exception was made for Avatar's Plot section because of that film's length. I know that the Avatar (2009 film) article is only GA, but could not an exception be made in this case as well? Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there some prime examples of films that are way over the plot limit but where still promoted to FA, like Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan and Transformers (film). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 02:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the two films listed above, those films don't really have complicated plots that would require an extensive plot outside of the guidelines. Unfortunately plot sections blossom as they're the favorite section of editors and IPs alike. I took a stab at editing the plot, and condensed it down to 700 words. I don't think I took out any vital details, and it complies with the guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added your plot section. I hope Flyer22 doesn't mind. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nehrams2020, good job at tweaking the plot length down. I still feel that these two film plots cannot be treated as simply as other film plots, given their films' length. What you chose to cut out, with the exception of two things, shows me that I was right. You mostly cut out tiny, trivial mentions that do not really need to be mentioned. But I was also thinking about IPs and editors who love editing the Plot section of articles and will feel something is missing, so they add to it. I tweaked the plot just a tiny bit to this for the reasons stated in that edit summary. "After much turmoil" was my solution to people who want it acknowledged that much happens in between Rose freeing Jack and Jack and Rose returning to the deck. Before I shortened it to that, it was plot boat. And the line about Jack assuring Rose she will die an old woman, warm in her bed, I feel is important, per what I stated below about that. Some might also feel that mentioning Cal commits suicide is important, but I did not add that back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Jack's hopes for her to die an old woman are relevant. After all, this is just a drama film, and he has no way of knowing if she will survive either (he can't see into the future). Placing the emphasis on that much detail seems to be so it can be considered foreshadowing as was mentioned above. We already know that she will survive, as she is alive at the beginning of the film telling the story. A brief mention that Jack wants her to live should be sufficient. Again, if there is any development from other sources that covers the ending, then that detail provided by Jack could be alluded to within that section. Are there any updates on using the other sources for the themes/ending analysis? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nehrams2020, the foreshadowing aspect is important because it attempts to answer the question of whether or not Rose dies at the end of the film. Most people walk away from that film feeling that she dies due to the very thing Jack says about her dying an old woman, warm in her bed. It, combined with the film's very end, is considered one of the most powerful parts of the film. For example, in The Screenwriter's Bible (3rd Edition, Expanded & Updated), screenwriter David Trottier explains: "This [Jack's prediction to Rose] comes late. The whistel. This is also introduced appropriately late, and its payoff is powerful." I do not feel that we need a section on the interpretation of the ending. That is already covered elsewhere in the article, in two places (The Cast and characters and Writing and insipiration sections). For the plot, Jacks words being there, should also help people to not add that Rose dies (which has been a constant problem with this Plot section). Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go, that Screenwriter's Bible source would be helpful for sourcing the ending if it's considered powerful. As I (and Steve below) have pointed you to just a few sources available there should be no issues in delving into these for looking to expanding the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComment (Sources): The references have not been prepared with adequate care, leaving a very long list of required fixes. Most of these are relatively minor, but there are just too many of them:-

  • Ref 1 lacks a retrieval date
  • The publisher for ref 2 (The Numbers) is Nash Information Services
  • Ref 24 (Robert Ballard) lacks publisher and date information
  • Ref 30: "Lord, 127". Where is "Lord" defined?
  • Ref 31: (Lynch) lacks publisher information
  • Ref 33: You should stick to one retrieval date format. Other instances of the same: 68, 79
  • Ref 34: (Joughin's report) is inadequately formatted
  • Ref 37: and others are to the Marsh book, which is listed as "Further reading", not as a cited source. The title needs to be removed from the Further reading section and defined within the references.
  • Ref 48: (Leydon interview lacks source and publisher
  • Ref 53: provides inadequate information for the source to be identified
  • Ref 62: (Parisi book) Same comment applies as with the Marsh book
  • Ref 66: retrieval date should not be italicised
  • Ref 76: What makes http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/02/06/top-10-chick-flicks-that-men-secretly-love/ a reliable source?
  • Ref 80: What makes http://www.manolith.com/2010/01/05/why-avatar-will-not-beat-titanic/ a reliable source?
  • Ref 84: I'm not sure why this is entitled Titanic "Titanic". Also, the publisher of the metacrtic site is CBS Interactive.
  • Ref 86: lacks publisher information
  • Ref 87: Please check the url. The site doesn't seem to be the right one.
  • Ref 93: You need to be consistent in the provision of access dates. For example, there seems no reason wht a retrieval date id given for the next ref - The Los Angeles Times but not here. Check throughout to ensure consistency.
  • Ref 96: Fox news is not a print source & should not be italicised (per MOS)
  • Ref 100: lacks publisher information
  • Ref 105: The publisher is The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
  • Ref 106: The publisher is The Recoeding Academy
  • Ref 107: RIAA should be spelt out
  • Ref 118 is uninformative
  • Ref 119: The publisher is Turner Broadcasting System Inc
  • Ref 122: The publisher of The Insider is CBS Interactive.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done adding the links and link changes you requested. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references have been tidied considerably, although because some numbers have changed, it is not always possible for me to see exactly what has been done. There are still a few problems:-

  • Ref 1 is not template formatted. In general you have used templates, and you need to be consistent.
  • There is a problem with the formatting of ref 109
  • There are still inconsistencies in the provision of retrieval dates. These should either be given for all references to online material, or should be restricted to non-print sources. At present, some of your print sources (e.g. 7, 8) have retrieval dates, others (e.g. 5) do not. There are also cases such as 88 which require retrieval dates. Probably your easiest bet is to give retrieval dates for all on-line sources.
  • The Marsh and Pirasi books should be listed under a heading (e.g. "Sources", rather than being left floating. Incidentally, the Marsh book has a co-author, Douglas Kirkland, and he should be shown in the book description.
  • For all citations to the listed books you should use the short citation. For example, ref 42 should read "Marsh and Kirkland, pp. 130–142". Many other cases.
  • Page ranges need to be separated by dashes, not hyphens. This needs fixing throughout.

In view of the progress made I have struck my oppose and the original list of required fixes, so you should concentrate on the shorter list of outstanding concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: please note that on the FAC page, "use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as  Done and  Not done) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." (see general FAC instructions) Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 15:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done fixing the other refs. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couiple of very small sources points outstanding, per above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Done. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done (and I'm glad I wasn't the only one who didn't like that scrollbar). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on further tweaking things, Secret Saturdays. Sorry that it took me so long to show up. I will see what else I can do to further tweak the article, if it needs it. I thought only regular contributors of the article could nominate it for FA, but I admire your boldness and it is only helping this article. So thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not really for removing the sentence in the plot covering possible views on the endings. That was added due to various attempts by users to say that Rose dies. While it is clear to me that she dies, Cameron said it is left up to the viewer to interpret whether she died or is simply sleeping. That simple addition satisfies both interpretations. Any real objections to adding it back? Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in any way a fan of including interpretation of the final scene in the Plot summary. I feel that section should be for describing what explicitly occurs, not for extrapolation of the events shown on screen. That being said, I fully support discussion of the sequence elsewhere in the article. Doniago (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Doniago, and I see what you mean. I just remember that whether to put that Rose dies or not was brought up on the talk page before, and that sourced sentence was seen as a way to satisfy concerns. I will go ahead and add that Jack says Rose will die an old lady, warm in her bed, however, seeing as I feel that this is clear foreshadowing and handles all of this quite well. From my experience, most viewers believe she dies at the end anyway, and adding this line by Jack corresponds greatly to the end of the film. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Well, if it was brought up on the Talk page and consensus was to keep it in despite MOS conventions, I guess maybe it should be in there, though perhaps as a footnote rather than in-line text. I'm not really a fan of including the foreshadowing line either, as it seems like plot bloat and one of the things I'd trim if I was working on streamlining the summary. Sorry to be being argumentative/nit-picky. I wouldn't suppose there's any sources out there establishing the intention of that line was to be foreshadowing...if it was then mentioning it elsewhere in the article (as opposed to Plot) would be cool. Again, sorry I'm being anal-retentive about this. Doniago (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an issue of anons adding interpretations, then a hidden comment can be added stating that the plot is to show only what is seen, not readers' perceptions. I don't think we would want to bury it in the footnote, and it currently fits well in the production section. I would still recommend to keep searching the current sources, and maybe Google Books/Scholar, to see if there are any details about the ending, symbolism, and/or the themes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it plot bloat, Doniago, since it brings the whole end of the film together brillianty. I tweaked it to this. I can assure you that it is foreshadowing. The Foreshadowing article's explanation makes it even more clear. But I know not to expect Wikipedia to just take my word for it. I do remember reading about this foreshadowing aspect of Titanic's in professional analysis of its script and in screenwriting books (such as The Screenwriter's Bible, 3rd Edition, Expanded & Updated, page 15.), however. I believe Cameron fully intended for that scene to correspond to the film's ending. Once some people started to question whether or not she really dies at the end, he decided he would not answer definitively. All I can further say on this matter is to keep it as is; we do not need sources calling it foreshadowing since I am not calling it that in the Plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks to be comprehensive and well researched. I'm finding issues with the prose. Just dealing with the lead section at the moment:

  • An "epic romantic-disaster film". Very odd. It's about an epic romantic disaster? If you're convinced both terms need to be here, perhaps "epic romance/disaster film".
  • "members of the ship's passengers"? No. Simply cut the awkward parenthetical. If a story centers around the voyage of a ship, we can be fairly certain that most of its characters will be found among that ship's passengers and crew.
  • Gloria Stuart "portrays", but then Billy Zane "stars"? An odd sequence.
  • "footage of the real wreck of the RMS Titanic." Crisper, more concise: "footage of the actual Titanic wreck."
  • "Shooting took place on board the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh – which aided Cameron in filming the real wreck – for the modern scenes,..." Clearer, more concise: "The modern scenes were shot on board the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, which aided Cameron in filming the real wreck,..."
  • "which aided Cameron in filming the real wreck" is itself clumsy and ambiguous. I imagined you meant something like "which Cameron also used as a base for filming the real wreck". However, when I looked at the primary text of the article, I could find no description at all of the "aid" provided by the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh.
  • "At the time, the picture became the most expensive film ever made..." Not "became" here, just "was".
  • "The film was originally to be released on July 2, 1997, but post-production delays pushed back the film's release to December 19, 1997." Unnecessary, awkward repetition of "the film": "pushed back its release".
  • "The film turned out to be an enormous critical and commercial success." Second consecutive sentence to begin with "The film", unnecessarily. "Turned out to be" is just verbose. Try this: "It was an enormous critical and commercial success."
  • "due to be re-released in theatres". "Re-released in theatres" rings redundant (though in the age of multi-format re-releases it technically is not). "Theaters" is also preferred to "theatres" in American English. Recasting smooths over the first issue and avoids the second while making the phrase more concise: "due for theatrical re-release".

The lead section often features the highest-quality prose of any section in a given article. In light of that, and in light of the prose issues I've identified, I suggest an independent copyeditor be enlisted to perform a thorough top-to-bottom copyedit. DocKino (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixing the prose. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not so.

Oppose Now poor Billy has no verb at all! The primary text still fails to explain the role played by Akademik Mstislav Keldysh in the filming of the Titanic wreck. And have you started your search for a good copyeditor? Your Contributions page suggests you have not. Do try the Guild of Copy Editors. This article requires some serious copyediting assistance to meet the Featured Article prose standard. It currently fails criterion 1a and, insofar as the primary text does not adequately support the lead, 1b, as well. DocKino (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have three things to say about your comment: 1) I just added a verb for "poor Billy" 2) the role of the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh IS explicitly stated in the primary text and 3) I asked the coyeditors. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I have three things to say about your comment:
  • (1) Why did you emphasize added?
  • (2) Your second statement is sorely mistaken. Just as I said, the primary text in no way connects the Akademik with the filming of the actual Titanic wreck. If you want to attempt to correct a reviewer in the future, may I suggest you provide a little, you know, evidence for your position? Of course, you can't do that in this case because you are flatly wrong. In the "Cameos" subsection, there is an obscure reference to an Akademik crew member, "Anatoly Sagalevich, creator and pilot of the Mir submersibles." What Mir submersibles? The article never explains what those are. Let's be very clear: You have brought an article to this process that is well short of our prose standards. You can be gracious about recognizing that fact, or not. It is immaterial to me. I am done here for the time being. If you wish, notify me when the article has been copyedited top-to-bottom and I will be happy to revisit your submission.
  • (3) At least that's a start (and yes, they are coy, those copyedtiors). DocKino (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay obviously, we're having a failure of communication here, so I think you should explain what I need to do with the Akademik, (i.e. do you want why the ship was selected, or why is it mentioned in the text or how it helped film the scene). P.S. the "coyedtiors" was a typo, as I was responding on my iPod. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked around the artical and it seems very close to FA, so I will support it. --Pedro J. the rookie 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I can't get to a review of the prose because of terminal overlinking. At best they are extremely annoying and at worst they are just plain stupid - click on "railrack" for example. Terms linked include steel, Italian, handcuff, Atlantic ocean, alter ego, shipwreck and an absurd fuck you. There are loads more. Graham Colm (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't think of linking fuck you as absurd when I did it, but I get your point. I cannot take credit for the other linking you mention, though. But removing overlinking is not a big deal. Will you be okay with this article once all of that is taken care of? Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - did you click on "railtrack" as I suggested? And please don't try to rush me by leaving messages on my talkpage. As I said above, I haven't even begun a review of the prose—this will take a few hours, when I get round to it. Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the link to the generic term. Howw is it now? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GrahamColm, I am sorry you felt rushed. I am sure that Secret Saturdays was just eager to see if this was enough for you to reconsider your oppose vote. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments On the whole, this is a well-written and engaging article that I enjoyed reading. There are many direct quotations that perhaps could be paraphrased, but this is just a personal preference. Similarly, I would have liked to have seen more uses made of paper sources such as David Lubin's "Titanic" (BFI Modern Classics)" [2]. I have made some minor edits to the article and would like to list a few more nit-picks:

  • I don't like the "romance/disaster" device, wouldn't "romance and disaster" work just as well?
  • "DeWitt Bukater" is hyphenated later.
  • This is a bit clumsy ,"since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts". It's the use of "mean" that I don't like. How about something like "because the marriage will solve the Dewitt-Bukater's financial problems."
  • This lacks flow, "Cameron said he needed the cast to feel as though they were really on the Titanic, its liveliness, and .." Something is need before "its liveliness", how about "experience" or "relive"?
  • This sentence needs more work; "When casting the role, various established actors, including Matthew McConaughey, Chris O'Donnell, Billy Crudup and Stephen Dorff, were considered, but Cameron ultimately felt that a few of them were too old for the part of a 20-year-old". It begs the question, what was wrong with the others?
  • I don't understand "a reputed empty shell".
  • I don't think the use of "cameo" as a verb is fully accepted and "cameoed" is especially ugly. Can't we simply have "played a cameo part"?
  • "1912 manners" is a little too shorthandish. I think it will have to be "to instruct the cast on the manners of the upper class gentility in 1912".
  • There is a problem with the tenses here: "The climactic scene involving the breakup of the ship just before it sinks and its final plunge to the bottom of the Atlantic, involves a tilting full-sized set, 150 extras and 100 stunt performers".
  • This is untidy, "The film debuted with $8,658,814 on its opening day". How about a simple "took" or "earned" instead of "debuted with"?
  • There is redundancy here, " After it was released, it stayed at number one for 15 consecutive weeks in the United States".
  • Lastly, two more odd links, "significant disappointment at the box office" and "word of mouth". Graham Colm (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Manolith.com. I asked about the reliability of this site at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I only have one response so far, and even that response does not seem to judge this source as definitively unreliable. Judging by the lack on responses to this, so far, I would say it shows the confusion over just how reliable/unreliable this site is. I can see how it is not the most reliable, but I still question whether it is not reliable at all by Wikipedia standards. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guess I should avoid it after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from Steve T • C This is an impressive achievement, to be sure, especially with regard to the level of production detail. Which is why I feel a complete tool for opposing this nomination on 1(b)—comprehensiveness. Very few, if any, film articles have successfully passed at FAC in the last couple of years without some kind of themes or interpretations section, something that goes into detail about the levels of analysis the film has attracted from academics. Obviously, not all films will get this treatment, but something with the visibility of Titanic is not one of them. Just a couple of minutes throws up several potential sources, which I'm certain are not even close to the tip of the iceberg (ouch, sorry, it's been a weird month):
    • Dassanowsky, Robert von. "A mountain of a ship: locating the Bergfilm in James Cameron's 'Titanic.'" Cinema Journal. 40 (2001): 18-35.
    • Anshen, David. "Out of the depths and through the postmodern surface". Cineaction. 51 (2000): 23-29.
    • Kendrick, James. "Marxist overtones in three films by James Cameron". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 27. 3 (1999): 36-44.
    • Kraemer, Peter. "Women first: 'Titanic' (1997), action-adventure films and Hollywood's female audience." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 18. 4 (1998): 599-618.
  • And that was just a random selection from the first page of results at the Film Literature Index. Unfortunately, this isn't something that I think can be addressed during the normal FAC timeframe. See my reading list for American Beauty, for example, which took a heck of a long time to sift through for useful information before I even began to write anything into the article. Still, if I can be proven wrong, hey, that'd be brilliant, so I'll keep this page watchlisted and check back in tomorrow evening. All the best, Steve T • C 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, with themes and interpretations, at first I thought you were talking about what themes Cameron says he added to the film. I was about to say that is covered in the Writing and inspirations section, and that this film does not have as many themes as Avatar, but then I saw that you said "analysis the film has attracted from academics" and then I knew you meant something like The Dark Knight (film) article. You are right, I currently do not have the time to add that kind of stuff to this article. When I significantly expanded/improved this article some time ago, it was to help it hold on to its GA status and because I like this film and like improving articles. I was eventually going to add more to this article, but not at this time, no. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (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/Titanic_(1997_film)/archive2&oldid=1136095105"