Talk:The Ides of March (2011 film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Blantant advertising[edit]
Sorry, but no plot, no OTHER information beyond the advertisements, move to delete without plot or any OTHER information. THIS is advertising, pure and simple. Move to delete by EOM with no further input. Wikipedia IS NOT a commercial advertisement service.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you serious? There is no plot because it has not been released to in the general public yet. The article has production, release and cast details. It will soon have reception commentary as well. What are you on? Is this the first Wikipedia article on an unreleased film that you've seen? —Mike Allen 07:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wzrd1, works of fiction are supposed to get coverage from secondary sources in their articles on Wikipedia. The only passage resembling promotion is the Rotten Tomatoes score so far, but that is incidental. We report the score for a film whether it is good or bad to provide an overview of critical reception. Mike is right about the plot. Since it is not out to the general public, it is not easily verifiable. However, it could use a synopsis section that explains the story in brief. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. At least it is NOT a PR move, there have been a few blatant advertising entries of late. Sorry for the poorly worded objection, it was rather late. And no, it's not the first article I've seen for an unreleased film. It just looked very much like an advertisement.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you see it as an advertisement? It's just information describing how the film was pulled together. We go out of our way to avoid phrases like "award-winning" and quotes of the filmmakers patting themselves on their backs. If a film does well, then we can't skirt the issue by avoiding mention of the critical reception or an award win (though we'd leave out minor awards). If you think there are other articles that have promotional language, let us know, and we can work on making them neutral. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. At least it is NOT a PR move, there have been a few blatant advertising entries of late. Sorry for the poorly worded objection, it was rather late. And no, it's not the first article I've seen for an unreleased film. It just looked very much like an advertisement.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Sony's view on title of the film[edit]
In the current version of the article, under the heading Release, the text suggests that it was only shortly before the release (sometime in 2011) that Sony was negotiating to release the film under the title Farragut North. The reference cited, however, makes it clear that this issue had been resolved in 2010 (before production). I wonder if this bit of information ought to come earlier in the article. It needs to be clarified that Sony acquired the rights well before filming began; some people might read the current version as implying that Sony acquired distribution rights only after the film premiered at the Venice Film Festival. Mathew5000 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)