Talk:A Simple Plan (film)

Differences section

Interesting discussion which directly concerns this section over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Adaptation_differences. As it is, it's original research as far as I'm concerned, no refs at all. Still, be interesting to see how the discussion goes. Geoff B (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing story

I've recently seen the film and find its story worth of a better description -- however I only edited a small and obviously erroneous part of the Plot section. I didn't want to fatten the film's portrayal into being meticulous and boring. But wouldn't it be nice to create some sections about recurring clues and pacing? Maybe I'll do it myself if you affirm the validity of my point -- so its not for appreciation that I beg :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.141.133 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research again

Can we please have a discussion about this unreferenced section before we get into this again? Pretty please? Millahnna (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of film and novel

Looking over the history of this article, I see that there was a long edit war (from July 2010 to March 2011) over the possible inclusion of a section entitled "Differences between the film and the novel". The final version of that section can be seen here [1]. The deletionist side eventually won the war.

Can I ask what the argument against including this section was? My apologies if I am re-opening old wounds, but this eight-month-long edit war was conducted without any discussion on the Talk page (aside from the request for discussion by Millahnna above).

The edit history merely refers to "original research". I agree that material violating the WP:NOR policy should rightly be deleted, and the final paragraph of the deleted section ("Overall, the changes make the finished story less violent....") is clearly analysis and thus forbidden by the NOR rule. But the rest of the section does not seem to be problematic.

Consider: The article A Simple Plan (novel) contains a detailed summary of the novel without any references or citations. The article A Simple Plan (film) contains a detailed summary of the film without any references or citations. If both of these are acceptable, how could the deleted section (aside from its final paragraph) be objectionable? The WP:NOR policy states that "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify" and which are "supported by the [primary] source" are permitted by the NOR rule. In the novel, Hank kills Jacob immediately after Lou's death, while in the film Jacob is killed immediately after the deaths of the sheriff and the fake FBI agent. Is there any doubt that "any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge" would agree that this constitutes a difference between the novel and the film? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As two months have passed and no one has objected, I am restoring the deleted section, minus the final pargraph (which was in violation of WP:NOR). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this discussion of the guidelines still applies. Any discussion of the differences between a film and its original source must be accompanied by third-party sources and not simply the observation of editors. All such observation and analysis is original research. The fact that the plot summaries, in both the film and the novel articles, have no references is irrelevant, as summaries are not required to have references. What would work is a section on the writing of the screenplay, in which the person who adapted the novel explains why they made certain editorial decisions, assuming sources exist that can be used to make such statements. But a free-standing "differences between..." section with no sources is simply the result of an editor's observation. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the link; I hadn't come across that. I was aware of the general NOR rule, but not this specific rule. The link you supplied is a discussion from 2008 on what the policy ought to be. The actual policy (which may have resulted from that discussion) turns out to be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Adaptation from source material. The key sentences, emphasis added, are these: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." So this isn't actually a violation of NOR, because if it were, it would be forbidden -- not merely "especially discouraged". However, as you say, it would be much better if we could cite statements by the filmmakers about the changes they made, and why they made them. Do you know of any such source? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

scholarly nonsense should be removed

Suggest removing the scholarly bullshit about sign systems and the western canon. It's much too esoteric and in-crowd, and adds nothing to our understanding of the film. Like much recent critical discourse, it acts essentially to highlight the ingenuity of the critic by appending a lot of unprovable guff to a text, that is, it is not fulfilling the ordinary function of criticism, to clarify a text (text in this sense including film), to show what else it might contain, or how its internal economy operates, but rather simply to annex the text to a pre-existing belief system. To be clear: the quotation does not illuminate the viewer's experience of the film, it dims it, by refocussing attention on the critical system. If the said system had been religious, say, Islam, or Christianity, it would be obvious what a lot of hokum it was as a pretence at film criticism; but call it a sign system, and everybody genuflects and forgets to think. If a critical quote is needed, I would suggest quoting a movie critic, not an academic.Theonemacduff (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

As this article is currently fully protected, I request that an admin remove the "differences between the film and the novel" section as original research and analysis. Such sections are only allowed if they are sourced to a third party, not when they are analysis on the part of an editor. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. This seemed like a fairly straightforward violation of Wikipedia:No original research, so I have removed the section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Simple Plan (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. :) Might be a few days, but I will. BenLinus1214^talk 01:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@FrankRizzo2006:Comments

• Why is note a necessary? Either list those production companies, or remove the note, in my opinion. Unless you can give me a reason to keep it.
• I can't do a lot now, but the plot summary is at the very high end of the guidelines as notated by WP:FILMPLOT. Nevertheless, I think it could really be tightened up and cut down because there are a lot of descriptions of individual conversations that are not really that notable or could be skimmed more quickly.
• Can you give me a reason why note c is important? It kind of reads like WP:TRIVIA.
• The "Combustible Celluloid" reference is a dead link.
• Is there any more information on casting? There's a little bit, but is that all you could find?
• In my opinion, the Production section could use a few images. I added a double image in the background, but maybe one for filming as well? This is just a suggestion--not completely necessary! :)
• "Raimi's hiring..." currently a bit informal—also, should probably put the more important information first. Possibly "Raimi did not have time to scout locations due to studio constraints…"
• Star Tribune ref is broken. For broken links, I would suggest typing the urls into an archive service like the Wayback Machine, they usually have them.
• "Savoy Pictures received screen credit" Source?
• I'll verify the writing section later because most of it is sourced to the Combustible Celluloid or Star Tribune refs, but other than that it looks good.
• You skip to the Minnesota Film Board thing rather quickly without any prior reference to them—maybe, "After Mike Nichols suggested that the story be set in the state, the Minnesota Film Board joined the project and remained with it throughout principal photography." (of course, only if those tweaks are what it says in the source—I can't see it because it's the star tribune one)
• "Filming began in Ashland, Wisconsin…" repetition of "shot"
• "The production team then returned to Minnesota" informal use of "plagued".
• The ref cited doest mention the stuff done in the "snow unit" sentence, so I've tagged it. Also, the sentence itself is very confusing.
• We don't need the Hank (Paxton) parenthetical.
• The part about it being filmed at Energy Park Studios is not in the source.
• In the cinematography section, Raimi's thoughts on the cinematography are interesting—perhaps you could incorporate some of his words into the body of the section.
• It looks like you could add more to the cinematography section by utilizing the International Cinematographers Guild reference.
• The title of "music and soundtrack" is a bit redundant—I would say to just choose one or the other. Other than that, this section looks good.
• "before opening wide" is a bit jargony—maybe "before opening in a wide release"
• The TIFF Berardinelli source is dead.
• I might put both Berardelli reviews in the same place because it seems awkward to refer to him and then go back later.
• The TIME isn't dead per se, but it doesn't link to a review.
• I would put the Golden Globe award nom in the main paragraph. Also, I would add the listing as one of the top 10 films of 1998 to the accolades list—other films list being on the similar list published by AFI as an award.
• The "DigitallyObsessed.com" link is down—it goes to what is essentially a blank page. Also, why is this a reliable source?

So User:FrankRizzo2006, basically, some link rot and sourcing clear-up stuff. BenLinus1214^talk 15:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:FrankRizzo2006, I see that you've done a lot of editing to the article based on comments per my review. Could you possibly update on this page what you've done? Thanks. BenLinus1214^talk 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits made

• Why is note a necessary? Either list those production companies, or remove the note, in my opinion. Unless you can give me a reason to keep it.
  • Removed a few of the notes.
• The "Combustible Celluloid" reference is a dead link.
  • Fixed the dead link to the "Combustible Celluloid" reference.
• "Raimi's hiring..." currently a bit informal—also, should probably put the more important information first. Possibly "Raimi did not have time to scout locations due to studio constraints…"
  • Fixed, as per your suggestion
• Star Tribune ref is broken. For broken links, I would suggest typing the urls into an archive service like the Wayback Machine, they usually have them.
  • Fixed the Star Tribune link, using the Wayback Machine.
• "Savoy Pictures received screen credit" Source?
  • "Savoy Pictures received screen credit" comment removed.
• We don't need the Hank (Paxton) parenthetical.
  • Removed the Hank (Paxton) parenthetical.
• The part about it being filmed at Energy Park Studios is not in the source.
  • Removed.
• Added page number near reference for stuff done in the "snow unit" sentence. I've also edited the sentence as per your suggestion.
• The title of "music and soundtrack" is a bit redundant—I would say to just choose one or the other. Other than that, this section looks good.
  • The title of "music and soundtrack" has been changed to "Music"
• "before opening wide" is a bit jargony—maybe "before opening in a wide release"
  • "before opening wide" has been changed to "before opening in a wide release".
• The TIME isn't dead per se, but it doesn't link to a review.
  • Removed the TIME magazine url in the magazine reference.

BenLinus, it will take a few more days to finish editing the article, and I have taken many of your suggestions into consideration. FrankRizzo (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Just let me know when you're finished. BenLinus1214^talk 01:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Nice expansions, especially in the cinematography section! It is my great pleasure to pass. Congrats on your fine work! :) BenLinus1214^talk 02:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions, BenLinus; much appreciated! Very happy to have worked on this article, and get it promoted to "Good Article" status! FrankRizzo (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits made

BenLinus, I've finished editing the article, using many of your suggestions.

• You skip to the Minnesota Film Board thing rather quickly without any prior reference to them—maybe, "After Mike Nichols suggested that the story be set in the state, the Minnesota Film Board joined the project and remained with it throughout principal photography." (of course, only if those tweaks are what it says in the source—I can't see it because it's the star tribune one)
  • Taken into consideration.
• "Filming began in Ashland, Wisconsin…" repetition of "shot"
  • Edited sentence.
• "The production team then returned to Minnesota" informal use of "plagued".
  • Edited sentence.
• In the cinematography section, Raimi's thoughts on the cinematography are interesting—perhaps you could incorporate some of his words into the body of the section.
  • I moved the following comment to the Cinematography section "Raimi saw A Simple Plan as an opportunity to direct a character-driven story that differed from his earlier works, which were highly stylized or dependent on intricate camera movements."
• It looks like you could add more to the cinematography section by utilizing the International Cinematographers Guild reference.
  • I have expanded on details in the Cinematography section.
• Is there any more information on casting? There's a little bit, but is that all you could find?
  • I've added additional casting details regarding Paxton and Thornton.

Hoping these edits and contributions have helped to improve the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Simple Plan (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204081248/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=58%2F to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=58%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)