Talk:Changeling (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Verifiable sources for this movie

Much of the available information about this movie comes from sources that are not verifiable. For instance there appears to be no confirmed source for the name currently listed in this article for Angelina Jolie's character. The cast listing in the IMDb is also suspect. I believe we should be careful in updating this article and use information from reliable sources such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The Los Angeles Times and other newspapers of record.

We should also be careful about spoiling the movie for potential viewers. This movie is based upon actual tragic events in Los Angeles that were front page news for nearly three years. Since this film will not be released until the end of 2008, we do not know to what degree the film will correspond to the actual case. For instance, character names may not correspond to the real people who were involved.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Changeling_(film)#_note-LA_Weekly_20071219 indicates the names of the characters are based on the names of the real people. Note: Many of the cast members listed in the IMDb have no other source. As this information becomes available in the press, citations should be added.--Dan Dassow (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Page should be moved to Changeling (film)

This film is not called "The Changeling", even though the IMDb incorretly says so at the moment. It will simply be called "Changeling", so I suggest to move this article to Changeling (film). Sources for the correct title: "Changeling" correction, Clint Eastwood: The Set Whisperer. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct title for this film is Changeling (2008) as EnemyOfTheState points out. This is the title mentioned in the original Variety article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960798.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) announcing the production and the Universal Pictures website (http://www.universalpictures.com/). However, there is another film mentioned in the IMDb with the title Changeling (2008) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462225/). Unfortunately, the IMDb and the Hollywood press have also referred to the Straczynski-Eastwood-Jolie film as the The Changeling. We need to keep this in mind when correcting the title to reduce confusion.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style for films reckons that "In the rare case that multiple films of the same name are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin like Film Title (2007 US film) or a descriptive adjective such as Film Title (2007 animated film). Considering they're both US films, something along the lines of the latter would be OK, I guess. Probably more appropriate for the other Changling film to go to Changling (2008 fantasy film) or some such, considering this is a straight-up drama. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the comment I made here. Anyway, if I understand your responses correctly, you are both in favor of moving this page to represent the correct title Changeling? So we could either go with Changeling (2008 drama film), or keeping it simpler Changeling (film), since the other film mentioned above doesn't have its own article at the moment and might never have one, as it seems to be a rather low-profile independent film, from its IMDb entry. Should the other film ever get its own page, we could still move this article to a more descriptive title. I'm fine with either solution. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about this too. Done now. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers moved to article Wineville Chicken Murders

Since this film will not debut until October or November of 2008, I thought it best to move spoilers about the plot of the film to seperate article, Wineville Chicken Murders, a kidnapping and murder case that received wide publicity between 1928 and 1930.--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of publishing spoilers, and someone may feel that your changes go against this policy. But I think the changes are OK for now, because 1) the incident is notable enough to warrant its own article, and 2) until the film is released and the plot becomes known, we don't know what the makers are doing with it. Still, it's worth noting that should bona fide information become available about the film, attempts to keep the article spoiler-free will probably fail. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates

I suggest the templates be changed from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}} -- sources like Variety and the rest are news-reporting sources. Nice revision, though! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on with your suggestion now. Steve ^{T • C} 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

• Malkovich Makes A ‘Changeling’
• Amy Ryan Loves Spare ‘Changeling’
• Amy Ryan Checks In
• Q&A: Amy Ryan (second page)

A few headlines that I had in my Google Alerts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• PLAYBILL ON OPENING NIGHT: Mauritius — A Threepenny Opera Jason Butler Harner is now heading for the West Coast to do a movie, "The Changeling," with Clint Eastwood directing. ... "It's got a bunch of good actors in it" [by his definition, New York stage actors: Reed Birney, Denis O'Hare, Frank Wood, Amy Ryan]. It's going to be made in Los Angeles, and I play a horrible, horrible, wonderful person." Note: Playbill has the title wrong.
• Amy Ryan Checks In
  

Who do you play in The Changeling?
I befriend [a character played by] Angelina Jolie. Both characters end up in really dire situations. And I kind of teach her how to survive. I help her through her darkest hour because I've been there a little longer than she has. But if I tell you where, it gives away a plot point.

You play a woman of the night?
Yeah, that's right. It's set in 1928. They were actually called soiled doves, which is nicer than saying [in her best Boston accent] She's a hook-ah!

--Dan Dassow (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out those used so far. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 09:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, they're all struck now, but I'd like some opinions on whether Harner's mention in the Playbill cite of Reed Birney, Denis O'Hare and Frank Wood is considered strong enough to add these names to the article. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of the three actors mentioned, Frank Wood (actor) is the only actor listed in the IMDb Changeling's credits and his role is not listed. His Wikipedia article is marginal and should be fleshed out since he won the Tony Award in 1999 for Best Actor (Featured Role - Play) for Side Man. Regardless, the roles for Reed Birney, Denis O'Hare and Frank Wood (actor) are likely to be minor with only Amy Ryan having a major role. I believe this is quotation is more of an indication that Jason Butler Harner prefers stage acting. From doing the research the Jason Butler Harner article, I know that Jason Butler Harner has worked with Amy Ryan on at least two stage productions. I mentioned the article primarily because of the phrase "I play a horrible, horrible, wonderful person."--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notorious pedophile dies in prison
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
In the News: Forensic phychology, criminology, and psychology-law
Dr. Karen Franklin, Ph.D., forensic psychologist in Northern California and an adjunct professor at Alliant International University

(A little stream of consciousness here - I was just over at San Quentin this morning, and happened to observe filming of an upcoming Clint Eastwood movie, "The Changeling," about the bizarre events surrounding a man sentenced to hang for the murder-rape-kidnaps of little boys back in the 1920s. Very cool vintage taxi they had driving up and down by the main prison gate; I believe star Angelina Jolie will be riding in it in the movie, although neither she nor Eastwood were in evidence at the prison today.)
--Dan Dassow (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, though there are occasional exceptions. My inclination is therefore to reluctantly leave this source to one side, but if anyone else is reading this, guidance on the usability of this source would be welcome. Steve ^{T • C} 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, it looks like the link to reference 21 Changeling_(film)#_note-10 got corrupted. I could only find the article in the Los Angeles Times archive. I hesitated to do a copy edit since the link is extremely long.
SCRIPTLAND; The big name gets distracted; J. Michael Straczynski's `Changeling' caught Ron Howard's eye, but then another project pulled Howard's focus.
[HOME EDITION]
Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles, Calif.
Author: Jay A. Fernandez
Date: Oct 11, 2006
Start Page: E.2
Section: Calendar; Part E; Calendar Desk
Text Word Count: 966

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1143501161.html?dids=1143501161:1143501161&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+11%2C+2006&author=Jay+A.+Fernandez&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=E.2&desc=SCRIPTLAND%3B+The+big+name+gets+distracted%3B+J.+Michael+Straczynski%27s+%60Changeling%27+caught+Ron+Howard%27s+eye%2C+but+then+another+project+pulled+Howard%27s+focus.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for checking that out; I don't know what happened. I've amended the link accordingly to point to the pay version, which is still verifiable and considered a good source. Though if anyone has the means of obtaining the full text, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Nice work getting rid of those redlinks on Harner and Cox, btw. Steve ^{T • C} 11:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=13119
The Comic Wire
Posted: February 24, 2008
WONDERCON: SPOTLIGHT ON STRACZYNSKI
by Erik Amaya, Contributing Writer

On the film front, his first major film just wrapped. "The Changeling" is directed by Clint Eastwood and produced by Ron Howard, starring Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich. Straczynski said, "they shot the first draft; no changes." It is due out in November.

I am not certain whether "The Comic Wire" would be considered a reliable source or if the article should mention that "they shot the first draft [of the script]; no changes."--Dan Dassow (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3366&Itemid=99
IESB.net - The Movie Reporter
Interview: Amy Ryan Joins Eastwood’s The Changeling!
Written by Rachel Howard
Friday, 28 September 2007
Amy Ryan will join Angelina Jolie in the upcoming film The Changeling directed by Clint Eastwood.

Q: Can you give us any story information?

AMY: I don’t think I’m allowed to . . .

Q: Not even your character?

AMY: Her name’s Carol.

Dan Dassow (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Title

The title is based on the European folklore and folk belief that a changeling is the offspring of a fairy, troll, elf or other legendary creature that has been secretly left in the place of a human child.

I was not certain whether this should be included in the lead paragraph. I also have not been able to find a citation to support this, although this is consistent with the story line.

Also, does the following template still apply? {{film needs cast section}} It seems that the article now has sufficient information about the cast and the crew, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process to justify removing this template.--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Devon Gearhart

Devon Gearhart does not appear have a major role in Changeling. He also does not have a sufficient acting resume or is otherwise notable to justify an article about him. As such, it would be inappropriate at this time to include him as one of the major cast members. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed not, which is why I removed it after failing to find a source. However, they do need a kid for the picture, so it might not be complete rubbish... Steve ^{T • C} 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The IMDB lists three actors with the first name Devon and one with the first name Devin: Devon Conti (Arthur Hutching, Jr.), Devon Gearhart (Jeffrey), Devon Sobieray (Shock Therapy Nurse) and Devin Brochu (Neighborhood Boy 1). Of the four, Devon Conti is the only one who has a major role. He is the boy shown with Angelina Jolie in the publicity photo at the train station.--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Screening Times at Cannes Film Festival

Posted on Cannes Film Festival (Festival de Cannes) website: (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en.html)
Horaire des projections / Screenings Guide (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/assets/Pdf/General/pdf-9141.pdf)

MAR/TUE 20

8:30 am, 12:00 pm, 7:30 pm, WED 21 11:30 am
CHANGELING 2h21
(L’Échange) de Clint Eastwood

4:00 pm
DELTA 1h32
de Kornél Mundruczó

--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Clintwood Interview in LE MONDE 2

http://www.lemonde.fr/le-monde-2/article/2008/05/16/clint-eastwood-dans-les-tenebres-de-los-angeles_1045803_1004868.html
LE MONDE 2 | 16.05.08 | 11h37 • Mis à jour le 16.05.08 | 12h06
Clint Eastwood, dans les ténèbres de Los Angeles

Translation from French to English:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fle-monde-2%2Farticle%2F2008%2F05%2F16%2Fclint-eastwood-dans-les-tenebres-de-los-angeles_1045803_1004868.html&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Clint Eastwood, in the darkness of Los Angeles
THE WORLD 2 | May 16, 2008 | 11:37 • Modified May 16, 2008 | 12:06

The article reveals how J. Michael Straczynski found out about the story, why Eastwood has an affinity for the story, why Eastwood believes the case was forgotten, Eastwood's tour of the Riverside farm, and that Eastwood was still working on the film in early May. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Phew. Used, ta. Steve ^{T • C} 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Title being changed from "Changeling" to "The Exchange"

According to sites AFP and Screen Daily the title of the Clint Eastwood's film is being changed to "The Exchange". Here's an article from the site Screen Daily:

[[1]] Clint Eastwood's Changeling changes name Mike Goodridge in Cannes 19 May 2008 06:14

Clint Eastwood’s Changeling has undergone a transformation of its own, with the director changing the film’s title on the eve of its competition screening in Cannes. It will now be called The Exchange.The film, about a woman in 1920s Los Angeles whose son is kidnapped, has always been dubbed L’Echange in France and evidently Eastwood liked that title better.

[[2]] Here is the article from AFP:

CANNES, France (AFP) — Clint Eastwood and Angelina Jolie admitted they were unsure of the title of their new film which was due for its red-carpet premiere at Cannes later Tuesday. The picture was listed in the festival catalogue as "Changeling" but reporters received a press release from Universal Pictures Monday saying that the title had been altered to "The Exchange".

(talk) 14:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear at this point whether or not the English title for this film has in fact be changed. During the Cannes press conference, Eastwood remained cryptic about that:

A reporter asked if the title Changeling been changed to The Exchange, which is the translation of the French title L'echange.

"That's news to us," Jolie said.

Told it was in writing, Eastwood smiled back, "It might be in writing. But is it the truth?" [3]

So for now, it's probably best to keep the title as it is. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Interview With Changeling Screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski

Cannes Film Festival - Interview With Changeling Screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski

Posted by Clayton Neuman May 20, 2008 12:45pm

J. Michael Straczynski has penned superhero comics, created a critically acclaimed SciFi series (Babylon 5) and written for Murder She Wrote. Now his brainchild, Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie, is in competition for the top prize at Cannes. Straczynski spoke with AMCtv.com about his detective work in writing the script, the film's political relevance, and how it feels to have a fan in Clint Eastwood.

...

This is an interesting interview with J. Michael Straczynski. Unfortunately, it is a blog so it may not be useable. The interview also includes a newspaper clipping showing the real Christine Collins.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it's usable. It's not a blog in the sense of being self-published. Some official sites just title web pages like these "blogs" to sound hip. Another example is the MTV Movies Blog, which really isn't. Both of them have prominent publishers in AMC and MTV, respectively. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Used, with thanks. Steve ^{T • C} 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Significance of Jeffrey Donovan's Role in Changeling

Variety (citation Changeling (film)#cite_ref-44) gives the cast of Changeling as:
Christine Collins - Angelina Jolie
Rev. Gustav Briegleb - John Malkovich
Capt. J.J. Jones - Jeffrey Donovan
Det. Lester Ybarra - Michael Kelly
Chief James E. Davis - Colm Feore
Gordon Northcott - Jason Butler Harner
Carol Dexter - Amy Ryan
S.S. Hahn - Geoff Pierson
Dr. Jonathan Steele - Denis O'Hare
Ben Harris - Frank Wood
Dr. Earl W. Tarr - Peter Gerety
Mayor Cryer - Reed Birney
Walter Collins - Gattlin Griffith
Arthur Hutchins - Devon Conti
Sanford Clark - Eddie Alderson

Yesterday, I added the following citation, Changeling (film)#cite_note-TV_Guide_Donovan-25, which is an TV Guide interview with Jeffrey Donovan. The TV Guide interviewer and Mr. Donovan seem to indicate he has a prominent role. The cast order seems to confirm this. Shouldn't Jeffrey Donovan's role also be more prominent in the Changeling (film) article?

--Dan Dassow (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the only reason his name isn't listed with the other leads is because until now there hasn't been sufficient information available about his role. All we've had is a name. If there's enough in that TV Guide interview, his entry can be expanded. I'll take a look at it shortly. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the one minute clip from Changeling at the train station features Angelina Jolie, Jeffrey Donovan and Devon Conti. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Changeling (film) to be Centerpiece of 2008 New York Film Festival

46th New York Film Festival
September 26 - October 12, 2008
Premiering the best in cinema from around the world.

NEW YORK, Aug. 12, 2008–– The North American premiere of Clint Eastwood’s Changeling will be featured as Centerpiece of the 46th New York Film Festival and Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler is the festival’s Closing Night selection, the Film Society of Lincoln Center announced today. A newly restored print of Max Ophuls’s final masterwork Lola Montès will be featured as the festival’s spotlight retrospective. All three films headline the festival’s 28-film main slate, which will screen at the Ziegfeld Theatre, Sept. 26 – Oct. 12. ...

Tickets for the festival will go on sale Sunday, Sept. 7, at 12:00 noon at Avery Fisher Hall, corner of Columbus Avenue and 65th St.; Monday, Sept. 8, online at filmlinc.com; and on Saturday, September 27 at the Ziegfeld Theater, 141 West 54th St.

Presented by the Film Society, the annual New York Film Festival showcases new works by both emerging talents and internationally recognized artists, including numerous New York, U.S., and world premieres. The Ziegfeld Theater is located at 141 West 54th St. (Please note the Ziegfeld Theater is not wheelchair accessible. For further information please call 212-875-5610.) An additional Opening Night screening, as well as Closing Night, will be held at Lincoln Center’s Avery Fisher Hall, corner of Columbus Avenue and 65th St. Other screenings and events will take place at the Film Society’s Walter Reade Theater, 165 West 65th St. close to Amsterdam Ave.

Other citations:

Variety Magazine
'Changeling' highlights N.Y. festival: Darren Aronofsky's 'Wrestler' to close event
By DADE HAYES
Posted: Tue., Aug. 12, 2008, 1:45pm PT

Gothamist
August 12, 2008
2008 New York Film Festival Lineup Announced

Hollywood Reporter
NYFF well stocked with Cannes titles
'Changeling,' 'The Class' among entries for festival
By Gregg Goldstein

Aug 12, 2008

New York Sun
New York Film Festival Announces Lineup
By Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 13, 2008

I am not certain how best to incorporate this into the article.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New York Film Festival Program
New York Film Festival Schedule
CENTERPIECE
Changeling
Clint Eastwood, USA, 2008; 140m
Sat Oct 4: 9:15pm Ziegfeld Theatre
Sun Oct 5: 11:15am Ziegfeld Theatre

Clint Eastwood’s 28th film proves to be one of his best and most ambitious, weaving the tangled threads of an extraordinary true-crime tale. The year is 1928, the place Los Angeles, where single mother Christine Collins returns home from work to discover that her 10-year-old son Walter has disappeared. A nationwide manhunt follows, but when the police find Walter several months later and reunite him with a grateful Christine, it’s not the end but merely the beginning of this stranger-than-fiction mystery. Featuring Angelina Jolie in a stunning performance that evokes the great star turns of 1930s melodramas, Changeling is at once the harrowing story of a woman wronged and a serpentine portrait of city corruption reminiscent of Chinatown and Touch of Evil. It is also Eastwood’s most provocative inquiry yet into the grey areas between good and evil––and the moral ambiguity of what we call justice. A Universal Pictures release.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly Article

Entertainment Weekly
Posted Aug 13, 2008 | Published in issue #1007-1008 Aug 22, 2008
Movie Preview
Changeling
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20219070_20219072_20218934,00.html
Tony Rivetti Jr.

... "When Brad [Pitt] saw Changeling he said he could see my mother," Jolie told EW in May. "That was very much my mother. Hated yelling at people, really was so decent and so sweet, but when it came to protecting her children, she somehow found this odd strength."

The film's matter-of-fact tone is a result of Clint Eastwood's famously economical directorial style. "One day we were shooting a scene where she and I talk about her case," recalls John Malkovich, who plays a crusading local pastor. "We started shooting at 9:30 a.m. and it was seven or eight pages, which is usually an 18-hour day. Around 2:30, Clint goes, 'That's lunch and that's a wrap.'... I've made close to 100 films now and that's certainly a phrase I've never heard in my entire life."

--Dan Dassow (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick cite paste. Sounds like it had its critics' screening yesterday, we might see a couple more reviews popping up in the next few days: Additional dialogue by Stephen Whitty, The Star-Ledger, Thursday October 02, 2008, 4:09 PM. Steve ^{T • C} 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image suggestion

Great free image of Angelina Jolie in the article! I would like to make a suggestion for it, though... can it be cropped to focus more on her? We can trim some of the left-side background and get the guy in the white shirt out of the picture. I think it would look a little more professional to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll give it a shot later today. I only held off doing so because I didn't want to annoy the photographer (whom I had to ask to see if she'd release it under a compatible licence), but I'm sure it won't be a problem. Steve ^{T • C} 07:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Print sources

• Germain, David (2008-05-21). "Eastwood takes on mother's story; Jolie plays single mom whose child goes missing". The Chronicle Herald. Associated Press.

"The film touches on themes familiar to Eastwood, who dealt with child abduction and abuse in A Perfect World and Mystic River. 'Children in danger, of course, is about the highest form of drama you can have,' Eastwood said. 'Crimes against children are to me the most heinous... When one comes along quite as big as this one, you question humanity. It never ceases to surprise me how cruel humanity can be.'"

Seems like a quote worth sharing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure whether to bother with a "Themes" section until after the film had been out a while, but between that, some unused quotes from various reviews, and what's already in the article, I think there might just be enough to warrant it. Steve ^{T • C} 17:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The September/October 2008 Issue of Creative Screenwriting features Changeling (film) and an interview with J. Michael Straczynski.
How Changeling Changed J. Michael Straczynski
BY JASON DAVIS

“There’s a point where you almost know too much about something, and suddenly you’re not sure how to tell the story,” Straczynski says. In an effort to let the story develop at its own pace, the writer put it aside and allowed himself to forget less essential events until he could bring into focus the portions of the story he wanted to tell. ...

--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think it may be likely for American Cinematographer to cover Changeling in its October 2008 issue. I don't know if an article would wind up online or not, but it's something to watch for. (Website shows up to Sept. 2008 right now.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall someone telling me the articles show up online one month after print publication, so I'll look out for it then if no-one's got to it in the meantime. Steve ^{T • C} 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rats... looks like it's not covered in the October 2008 issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Dan. Do you by any chance have the issue of CS from which the full text of the Straczynski interview can be nabbed? Steve ^{T • C} 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the September/October 2008 Issue of Creative Screenwriting. The article was discussed in JMS News. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous Partial Printing of Screenplay

The first few scenes of this screenplay are included in Straczynski's popular manual on screenwriting, The Complete Book of Scriptwriting under the title "The Strange Case of Christine Collins" starting on page 165. At least it would seem to be the same story based on names and plot development of the excerpt. Ara Praxis (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realized the same thing as details about the film came out. The article as it currently stands is somewhat misleading, as it implies that that the film was all conceived, researched, and written within the last few years. I don't doubt that the most recent draft was a significant update - the book (copyright 1996) also says it had been "optioned repeatedly" - but it's probably worth including in the production section. Patrickbowman (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; all the recent news stories about the film seem to indicate that the film is a recently-conceived one, but I left the possibility open of its taking longer by including the line "Several years prior to production..." at the start of the "Production" section. If we can get some solid dates on this (such as when Straczynski first heard about the case from his contact), it'd be a big help. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 07:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that indication is being cultivated by the studio and/or filmmakers. Maybe they don't want to be seen as optioning an ancient script that has been optioned (but never completed) in the past. Or even worse: optioned by the studio previously, or passed by the studio only to be purchased and turned into an huge film by some of the biggest names in the business.

Here's a link to production notes, if you haven't seen them: http://www.universalpicturesawards.com/pdfs/notes/Changeling_Notes.pdf

It similarly seems to avoid any indication of exactly when JMS started working on it, or when he was called down to City Hall to see the soon-to-be-incinerated records, while suggesting he researched it, wrote it and then sold it immediately. (It seems to me that one would keep records around for some round number of years: 50 years would be around 1980, when JMS was 26; 70 years would be 2000, after Babylon 5 was done.) The L.A. Times article also places it in the past but also implies it was written after B5.

Although there is a bit of irony in suggesting that the powers-that-be are trying to keep the truth about this hidden.  :-) Patrickbowman (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

From everything I've read on this so far, it seems to me that the initial contact was at some indeterminate point during his TV years, but sat on it (maybe he wrote a couple of scenes here and there, which would explain the appearance in the scriptwriting book mentioned above). After Jeremiah ceased production (2003), he did his "year of research" and wrote the screenplay proper. This he says explicitly in this article ("After working on 'Jeremiah' for Showtime, I needed a break... I'd been working on television for 20 years. I had heard this real story and I finally found more information on it, and I figured out how to tell it"). Tell me if you think I've got that wrong. Our article pretty much reflects what I've set out here, but is deliberately vague with the timescale at the beginning due to the lack of information. Steve ^{T • C} 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, we could just go ahead and ask him. Steve ^{T • C} 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it about right, although in his book he explicitly says that it was a spec screenplay, that it had already been optioned and was under option "currently" (i.e. 1996) all of which sounds like a completed screenplay. I suspect that he had written that version, it was in development hell, and never got done. Then after Jeremiah he returned to it, got the new info, wrote an improved draft and sold it. And yeah, someone should just ask him. Is a newsgroup post an acceptable source for WP? In any case, the article is fine as it, until there's clarification.Patrickbowman (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cinema of the United States

I noticed that the pipe-linked Cinema of the United States under "American" in the article's very first sentence was de-linked. I was wondering if we could evaluate the need for such a wiki-link. My impression is that the first sentence usually specifies in what categories a film falls, may it be release year, genre, or nationality. Is it considered more appropriate to link to Cinema of France for a French film? I'm not one for overlinking, but it seems like these kinds of cinema articles should be wiki-linked in individual film articles to at least strengthen navigation across articles under WikiProject Films. Is this something that needs to be clarified by the community at WT:FILM? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't even think about it like that. I just include it automatically in my sweeps for overlinkage. Steve ^{T • C} 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Premiere of Changeling – Thu Oct 23, 2008

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/universal-pictures-imagine-entertainment-present/story.aspx?guid=%7B323523D3-7DCF-4615-B6C0-ABD9B97791E6%7D&dist=hppr

UNIVERSAL PICTURES AND IMAGINE ENTERTAINMENT
PRESENT THE LOS ANGELES PREMIERE OF CHANGELING
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCES LOS ANGELES, CA
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23

Last update: 6:00 p.m. EDT Oct. 17, 2008
LOS ANGELES, Oct 17, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --

    WHAT:   The Los Angeles premiere of the provocative drama CHANGELING

    WHO:    CHANGELING director/producer/composer Clint Eastwood; cast

            members Devon Conti, Jeffrey Donovan, Colm Feore, Gattlin

            Griffith, Jason Butler Harner and Michael Kelly; producers Brian

            Grazer, Ron Howard and Robert Lorenz; and screenwriter J. Michael

            Straczynski

    WHERE:  Samuel Goldwyn Theater

            Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

            8949 Wilshire Boulevard

            Beverly Hills, CA

    WHEN:   Thursday, October 23, 2008

            5:00 PM     Press Call Time

            6:00 PM     Celebrity Arrivals

            7:00 PM     Screening Begins

--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Universal's 2008 For Your Consideration website (http://awards.universalpictures.com/screenings.html) now has the screening schedule for members of AMPAS®, ACE, ADG, ASC, BAFTA, BFCA, CAS, CDG, DGA, HFPA, LAFCA, MPEG, MPSE, MUAHS, NAACP Image Awards Nom. Comm., NBR, NSFC, NYFCC, NYFCO, PGA, SAG Nom. Comm., SDSA, VES and WGA.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Of possible use in adding to the reception section; summarises the critical consensus somewhat: Tom O'Neil (2008-10-24). "Good reviews for Angelina Jolie in 'Changeling' = good news at Oscars time?". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved 2008-10-25. —Steve ^{T • C} 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gesticulate versus kick

Special:Contributions/206.75.157.72 changed "gesticulate" to "kick" at 06:51, October 26, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Changeling_(film)&oldid=247727740) with the rationale that "feet can't gesticulate, although the orangutanish image is compelling". One definition of gesticulate is "show, express or direct through movement". In other words, one can gesticulate with parts of the body besides hands. "Kick" does not bring to mind the mental picture of "gesticulate," so it seems inadequate in this context. Since this is from a translation of a quotation of Clint Eastwood in a French language interview in Le Monde (Changeling_(film)#cite_note-le_monde-11), we should try to stay as close to the source material as possible. Unfortunately, a published translation of the article in not availble from Le Monde. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor is right that "gesticulate" is the wrong word. I forget which was used in the original Le Monde article; I'll check it later. Steve ^{T • C} 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

page needs to be pared down

7 pages about "the movie", less then one of them are about the film itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.212.20 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The whole article is about the film, how it was developed, made, written, cast and received. It could use a full plot summary; is that what you mean? FWIW, I'm hoping to get one written in the next couple of days, though that shouldn't put anyone off doing one in the meantime if they've seen the film. Steve ^{T • C} 09:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, speaking of the plot section, I wonder if we should wait until the wide release to add one, or whether it's OK now the film has screened in a limited number of theaters. Steve ^{T • C} 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I look at your draft for the plot section and it is accurate and well written. I would, however, wait until after wide release, although I will defer to people like Erik, who knows the accepted practices for film articles much better than I do. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Normally, a film article's plot section is cited to the film itself (i.e. the film can be checked as a primary source for any inaccuracies). Per verifiability, it probably needs to be available to view in more than 15 theaters to allow it to be checked by other editors. Steve ^{T • C} 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Changeling is based on a true story, wide release may be a good time to start comparing the film story line against the actual case. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly. However, we can't make the comparison ourselves. I would imagine something will pop up in a reliable source once the film has opened wide, though we should be careful not to dwell too much on the subject, which some might consider to be trivial. Steve ^{T • C} 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that experts on the case will eventually comment on the film. The LA Times already has periodically comments on the history of LA. The LA Times already has two stories regarding Changeling:Changeling stories -- Part I and Changeling stories -- Part II. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The analysis section, is at present, almost wholly garbage

The whole analysis section is just postmodern postfeminist undergrad coffee house theorizing. It has almost nothing to do with the movie, except perhaps that the navel gazing starts with a couple plot points from the movie. Moreover it states any number of subjective political conclusions as if they are simple facts. In short it concisely represents most of the worst aspects of wikipedia (the people who feel the most strongly about a topic dominating it with subjective information masquerading as documentary information). My first reaction is to delete this whole section as it's patently out of place (maybe some of it could be placed in a 'feminist criticism of media' section somewhere else)... however I'm trying to be a somewhat more constructive wikicitizen or whatever and simply suggest this so that someone else with more patience for that sort of thing can edit it down to some kind of coherent piece that actually relates to the movie instead of a tangentially invoked lame (in my opinion, but that's hardly the point) political agenda. I suppose this should serve as a nice test case of this entire venture can ever be anything more than a collection of fan sites for various things presuming to be a reference book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.251.201 (talk • contribs)

Is it just the perceived link to criticism of the recent female candidates that's irritating you, or pretty much all of it? I'm happy to remove it if a consensus builds here that it's out of place. My intent on putting it in wasn't to further any kind of political agenda, just to reflect what a couple of commentators of note perceived. You'll note that it's worded very carefully ("reflecting a view that", "The perception that") to avoid it coming across like editor opinion. Analysis sections are always hard beasts to write, so any constructive criticism will be welcomed. If you're looking for proof that the article hasn't been written with fans in mind, the large "Reception" section provides plenty. Steve ^{T • C} 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

UK Premiere

http://premierehub.com/premieres/film.php?id=172&vote=true
Changeling, London UK premiere
Date of premiere: 16th November 2008
Location of premiere: Empire Leicester Square, London

--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

I think that this article can qualify as a Good Article. Steve, Dan, as primary contributors, do you feel like anything more needs to be added? I think that it is in great shape and wanted to make sure it could fly through the assessment process done by an independent editor. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's great you think that, thanks. I suppose the only stuff that's missing now is whatever the DVD might yield, the eventual box office performance, and perhaps a punch-up of the "Historical context" section (and I never liked that title, any ideas?). My own feeling would be to wait at least until its US theatrical run is over with, if only so there's enough information to make that section more complete, but if you do think it's ready for GA, I'd bow to your more experienced judgement. Steve ^{T • C} 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be a Good Article, not a Featured Article. :) You can certainly add information from the DVD when it eventually comes out, but I think the article as it stands is broad in its coverage. Another idea for expansion is to hit the magazine stands and see if any non-film magazines cover this. For example, there might be historical magazines that analyze the film in its era or magazines that are focused on Los Angeles that would cover the film out of interest. Do you feel like there may be any other major events for the film? Any awards can be mentioned when the time comes. For "Historical context", I don't mind the section heading at all. I can't think of anything better, though I would suggest having more of a summary sentence for the beginning of the section. Dan, any preference about putting the article up for GAN or not? -Erik (talk • contrib) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I believe that Steve has done a great job with article. My contributions by comparison have been minor, so I will defer to Steve's preferences. I believe that the article is currently ready for a GAN. We can add information on DVD features, box office, awards and other issues as they become available. Also, there are strong indications the DVD will include behind the scenes information and background information on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to go on a five-day trip in a few hours today so I don't know if I'll have much, if any, access to Internet/Wikipedia while on the road. There's no reason to wait for nominating it... I won't be the one to assess it because I think it would benefit from an independent pair of eyes. Seems like there's some good VFX information below that the article lacks in detail, so maybe work that in, then nominate it? Remember that it's common courtesy to assess another nominated GA when you add one. :) -Erik (talk • contrib) 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, already nommed this a few hours ago, before I saw the new effects information below. Told you it was premature! With a bit of luck I should be able to get both of those articles incorporated before it's reviewed; I think I have a few days, considering the backlog I see at WP:GA (which I'll of course attempt to reduce by reviewing a couple). Steve ^{T • C} 14:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

'Can' qualify? This is the best article on Wikipedia I have ever read. I'd like to know who the principal author is. Whoever this person is should be an overriding editor for Wikipedia and beef up quality here. This article is a freaking *monument*. Dazzling. The best I have *ever* read. If the author is user Steve (below) then all I have to say is thank you, Steve, congrats, and wow.

'Great' is an underestimation. This article is downright *beautiful*. The editing, the phrasing, the punctuation, the attention to detail, nary a single typo or word usage or other type of error *anywhere*. And the story keeps on going, keeps your attention. Frankly the article is too meaty for one sitting - this is a typical 'we gotta bookmark this one' type of article. It's a bookmark you send to all your friends to tell them 'this is an article you will enjoy reading'. Journalistically it also beats 95% of the mainstream stuff out there. The only competitor I can think of at the moment is the London Times. This article is *phenomenal* and were Wikipedia of this consistent quality throughout there would be no negative talk about Wikipedia ever again, Britannica would go tits up, and Wikipedia would have finally arrived. And I still haven't told you how I *really* feel about this article! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.29.159 (talk • contribs) 12:08, November 17, 2008

Special Effects in Changeling - Article

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4767&referer=rss
Guiding the eye to the Invisible Digital Effects for Changeling.
CGSociety :: Production Focus
6 November 2008, by Renee Dunlop

The article gives a behind the scenes view of the special effects for Changeling.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You reminded me of another source! Check out VFXWorld's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, both of these can be struck from the list. The section looks a little long at the moment, so any suggestions would be welcomed. Maybe there's enough detail there for one or two fair-use images, which might break things up nicely. Or perhaps subsections would be appropriate; one with the general effects information, another on the use of Massive, with a third on the two and a half minute effects shot at the end of the film? Steve ^{T • C} 11:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that subsections would be useful for the visual effects subsection; it is a little longer than the other subsections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article from VFXWorld VICON House of Moves Provides Mo-Cap for Changeling provides additional information on the motion capture done for Changeling that could be useful in the section Changeling_(film)#Digital_extras.

VICON House of Moves, a motion capture service bureau and a division of VICON, developer of Academy Award-winning motion capture systems, has provided motion capture services for VFX facility CIS Vancouver (http://www.cis-vancouver.com) for the Clint Eastwood-directed drama from Universal Pictures, CHANGELING. ...

--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it. :) Steve ^{T • C} 13:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why CIS Vancouver links to Rainmaker? I believe they had nothing to do with the movie. It is a totally diferent company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.43.190 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Same company. See almost any of these pages for verification. I was going to move Rainmaker Digital Effects to CIS Vancouver, but I believe only one of the three Rainmaker divisions (Rainmaker Visual Effects) is now CIS; the others retain the old name. Steve ^{T • C} 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Captions

I came across three theater chains that have been and/or will be showing Changeling with Open captions for the hearing impaired. Marcus Theatres (http://www.marcustheatres.com/movie.cfm?marcus_id=6251), Empire Theatres (http://empiretheatres.com/node/8470) and Hawkins Theatres (http://www.harkinstheatres.com/OpenCaption/OpenCaption.aspx).

Is this a common practice for films and should this be included in the article? --Dan Dassow (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's normal for most high-profile films, so mentioning it in the article would not be necessary, IMO. Steve ^{T • C} 09:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah, first time I've seen captioning mentioned on Wikipedia by someone besides me. I agree with Steve that it is not necessary. Open captioning and rear-window captioning are definitely common for mainstream films -- MoPix lists a lot of equipped theaters. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of Production subsections

I hate to nitpick, but I think it seems strange that "Writing" is after "Visual effects". Is there a reason for this order? I've usually preferred "Writing" and "Casting" as the first two subsections, though I don't have a preference about which comes first. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall how it worked out that way; I think it was simply due to the "usual" layout we use in having casting information close to the top of the article to dissuade a separate and wholly-unnecessary cast list. Then, as more information got added to the article, "Writing" kinda just got absent-mindedly shunted to the end. I'll preview a couple of different placements for it and chose one that better fits it into the chronology. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

This article meets everything of the Good article criteria. Great job to Steve because I am passing this off. Wildroot (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I think that Propaniac (talk · contribs) shortened the lead section too much. While the section may have been somewhat lengthy, I think that the editor took too much out for an article of this length, reducing it to paragraphs that are pretty stubby in nature. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a summary of a pretty long article, but I'll see if I can't chop it down some. However, I do think that the first port of call whenever trying to shorten a section should always be to tighten the prose rather than remove detail, IMO. After that, sure, let's see what else can be trimmed. Steve ^{T • C} 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable size? Steve ^{T • C} 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, do you mean an improvement over my version, the old version, or both?

While I respect the efforts made by Steve, I'm not sure I personally find the new version to be an improvement over either of the others. It seems that where my strategy for shortening prose is generally to combine two or more sentences into one, yours is to shorten both sentences; the result is several paragraphs full of short sentences that don't seem to flow together very well when reading. Also, while I know my tendency towards short paragraphs isn't a preference everyone shares, the longer paragraphs in the current lead combine topics in a way that doesn't make any sense to me. For example, the fourth paragraph talks about casting and then all of a sudden is discussing the film's premiere; is there any reason for keeping them as one paragraph except to try to meet an artificial paragraph limit without cutting any information?

I'm not all that familiar with WP:LEAD, but I did glance at it before tackling this one, and tried to follow its directive that the lead should "summarize the most important points" of the article. I don't see why, for example, the fact that the screenwriter inserted newspaper clippings into the script is one of the most important points; to me, it seems barely above trivia (although I have no objection to mentioning it in the body of the article itself). I thought my version adequately alluded to the screenwriter's attention to historical accuracy by describing his heavy research and reliance on primary sources. Similarly, does it really help anyone understand the topic through this brief overview to mention that the atmosphere on the set was as calm as Eastwood's other films?

I also altered some parts, including the description of the film's themes and the film's reviews, because nothing was cited; describing the reviews as "generally favorable" seems very much a POV matter given its 56% RottenTomatoes rating (although I liked the movie myself). Incidentally, while I don't plan to try to cut down the rest of this article, the "Critical reception" section appears ridiculously long. A person could just read five or six reviews in the time it would take to slog through that "summary." Propaniac (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can save the newspaper clippings for the article body. I don't know about removing the mood, though... we'd mention it if there was some pushing around on the set, and Eastwood's particular conduct has been commented upon. As for the critical reception and themes, the content is in the article body. I don't see why you're disputing the lack of citation for these parts if the rest of the lead section is uncited. (Which is acceptable as the section is a concise overview of the article -- normally if a part is very controversial, it would be cited.) We can talk about shaping these parts to adequately summarize the critical reception and themes as reflected in the article body, but citations are not needed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the critical reception section needs some trims. The lead is now, I hope, a good summary of what is after all a pretty long article. It has information on every section, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Steve ^{T • C} 02:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"overlaid" or "superimposed," not "inverted"

user:Softlavender revision 252134189

Writing: "overlaid" or "superimposed," not "inverted" -- because one triangle is rightside-up

makes more sense than what J. Michael Straczynski, screenwriter of Changeling, said in an interview regarding incorporating the elements of the Collins’ story and the panorama of Los Angeles at that time. Since this is a paraphrase of the screenwriters interview, substituting "overlaid" in place of "inverted" is prudent and is closer to Mr. Straczynski's orginal intent. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Briegleb

There is no mention of the real Gustav Briegleb in the Historical context section. Did he really exist? What role did he play in the actual case? The film has him releasing Christine Collins from the hospital, but it seems the police did this when they realized she was right. I'd like to know what his actual role was, if anybody knows. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Gustav Briegleb existed. He was a colleague of Robert P. Shuler.For an example see "Ministers in Contempt". Los Angeles Times. 1929-10-16. Retrieved 2008-11-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Dan Dassow (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what his role was in the Christine Collins case? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

According to a very brief mention in the LA Times, Dr. Briegleb intervened on Christine Collins' behalf when she was placed in the LA County Hospital psychopathic ward. Dr. Briegleb and Rev. Shuler also wrote letters to the parole board on Walter J. Collins, Sr.'s behalf. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Depression

Eastwood's comment that the film's setting in the Great Depression drew him to the script certainly gives us insight into Eastwood's character, but I wonder if the article should point out that the most of the story takes place before the great depression. The story is set in 1928, and the great depression started with the stock market crash in October 1929.

Good point. I'll tweak the language accordingly. Steve ^{T • C} 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The film definitely indicates that the events started in 1928. I would have corrected the date if I had noticed the change from 1928 to 1929. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Release section

How much detail should we go into on the film's box office performance? I've added detail to the "Release" section that talks about the film's "respectable" openings in several countries in Europe so far, but I'm not sure if this will ultimately lead to a long collection of numbers that will bore a reader to tears. For non-English-speaking countries, should we just give the total haul, rather than the individual breakdowns? Also, I've got something here from a French-language review aggregator (similar to Metacritic); should anything from that be included? Steve ^{T • C} 11:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that it is informative to find out how Changeling opens in other territories. The line could be drawn at what is revealed in prose, rather than citing a "foreign box office" web page in database format, which will probably have too much indiscriminate detail. It shows the difference between an American release and a release elsewhere, which can be pretty stark. I don't think most people are exposed to that kind of distribution information, so it seems relevant to include. What additional information do you have that you haven't added yet? And what does the French-languag review aggregator have? You included a French review, which seems sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On the box office figures, I've included everything I've found in prose form so far (e.g. from the ever-useful Variety articles). I just wasn't sure if the detail I went into was too much ("x from y theatres, for a per-theater average of z in France"), when other cites give us a total for the international markets rolled together instead ("x from y screens in four international markets"). All I've really left out is information from mere lists of figures, such as you might find at Box Office Mojo. The French review aggregator at AlloCiné gives a summary of review scores from a couple of dozen French publications, so it might be used to cite a one-line statement one way or the other. Steve ^{T • C} 13:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that; I'm not sure the AlloCiné page is reliable enough for use here, and frustratingly there's no overall score or summary as at Metacritic, so the consensus would have to be calculated ourselves. Steve ^{T • C} 14:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sound Track / Score

Other than mentioning that Clint Eastwood has written the score for Changeling, there is little else regarding the reviews of the film's score in the article. Here is a review of the Changeling soundtrack CD: Schweiger, Daniel (2008-11-25). "CD Review: CHANGELING – Original Soundtrack". Film Music Magazine. Retrieved 2008-011-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

--Dan Dassow (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You must have received the Google News alert at the same time as I did. :) I've already made a start at collecting the sources, including that one, here, though I don't think there's enough yet for its own complete section. It may be that due to the current length of this article, the soundtrack would be more appropriate for its own stub article, with just a short note here. I'll try to craft something over the next day or two to see how it looks. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the information on the soundtrack and CD information probably should be in a seperate article. We should probably do the same with the DVD / Video release when that occurs. The same may be true for the novelization that [J. Michael Straczynski] just confirmed for a February 2009 completion date. Source Hollywood Reporter Article <<For Straczynski, the Christine Collins story continues beyond the film. He's working on a book about her and the Wineville murders, which he expects to complete in February. "There was so much I had to leave out," he says. "It's a chance for me tell the full story.">> --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a novelization, more a factual account of the true life events, which is why I didn't mention it in the article yet; I thought it might be more suitable for Straczynski's article than here, or even at the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. While I'd go for one one the soundtrack, I don't think a separate article would be required for the DVD release; this can be covered in a relatively short section, and there is some scope for trimming of fat if we become concerned about the article's size. Perhaps from the "Historical context" and "Casting" sections, which do repeat some information from the plot summary. Steve ^{T • C} 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I was hoping you were right. However, according to http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17765 - I still retain the novel rights, but have fallen behind on the writing of it due to other, more crucial deadlines. jms --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Ah well, sorry to hear that, I know you would have preferred a straight factual account. I'll drop a note into the article somewhere shortly, though I'm wary about using cites from rastb5m, so the THR cite will have to do until more information comes to light. Steve ^{T • C} 08:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, this was more of a heads up, especially in light that I was the person who asked JMS the question. Given Mr. Stracznski's current work load, it could be a few months before he can get back to his book on Christine Collins. Upon further reflection, novel rights might not necessarily mean that the book on Christine Collins is fiction. It could simply mean that he retains rights to the material he used to research Changeling and that he can write a book without obtaining a clearance from Universal. --Dan Dassow (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

French ending

What does the end of Changeling state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.148.30 (talk • contribs) 01:42, November 30, 2008

There are a few lines at the end of the film that describe what happened to the characters afterwards; I don't have the exact text, but it's likely covered here or here. What do you mean by "French ending" exactly? I don't think it's different to the English version (other than being in French of course!) Steve ^{T • C} 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Release and Critical reception

In looking at these sections, I think the part of the beginning paragraph in "Critical reception" starting with CinemaScore should be placed in "Release". This part has more to do with the audience than it does for critics, unless you want to retitle "Critical reception" into "Reception". Whichever works better. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I must have previewed about half a dozen different layouts to the section, but couldn't settle on one that felt right. I didn't consider moving the audience reaction information to another section altogether, so I'll give that a whirl. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talking of reorganising the sections, which I've just done some more of, do you think that the "Writing" section should go above "Casting" to better reflect the chronology of the production? I've been reluctant to do so up until now, as I'm sure a lot of readers might be more interested in reading the cast titbits first. Steve ^{T • C} 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the switch would be ideal. Another possibility is to make the "Casting" subsection into a stand-alone "Cast" section, and you could move it more freely. Whichever you think will help the flow of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since you moved a paragraph to start off "Production", I think that the details about the editing and the scene cuts could be moved back elsewhere into the article. The other details are fine to start off the section... I should do that myself for other articles, actually. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not entirely sure where they should go to. I was just using the "Production" intro as a dumping ground for the information that didn't yet have a home. Maybe their ultimate destination will become clearer when any DVD production information has been incorporated, but if you've got a suggestion it'd be most welcome. Steve ^{T • C} 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gloves worn in Changeling

http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/1347518.html
Gloves get a star turn
By Monica Corcoran - Los Angeles Times
Published: Sun, Dec. 28, 2008 12:00AM
Modified Sun, Dec. 28, 2008 01:43AM

Dorothy Gaspar, owner of Gaspar Gloves, made the cocoa gloves Angelina Jolie wore in Changeling. She also created the red, scallop-edged gloves Renee Zellweger fancied in Leatherheads, gloves for Titanic (1997 film), Batman Returns, Charlie's Angels (film), 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film), and Nutty Professor II: The Klumps.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DVD, Blu-Ray, PPV, VOD

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/01-07-2009/0004950931&EDATE=

"Changeling" will also be available On Demand starting February 17, 2009. NBCU's VOD and PPV offerings are available through major cable providers, as well as direct broadcast satellite (DBS), telco providers and online platforms. Offerings are also available in HD in select markets. For more details about NBC Universal's VOD and PPV offerings, visit http://www.universalvod.net .

--Dan Dassow (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to http://impulsegamer.com/wordpress/?p=1438 Changeling will be available on DVD in Australia on June 17, 2009. --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll stick something in shortly. Now, if you can only get JMS to reveal in which year (or even decade) he first heard about the Collins hearing, I can get rid of that horribly passive sentence that begins the "Development" section. :) Steve ^{T • C} 12:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The first edition of "The Complete Book of Scriptwriting" has a 1982 publication date. This edition makes no reference to Christine Collins. The second edition has an October 1996 publication date and references Christine Collins. So we can definitively say that J. Michael Straczynski found out about the base between these times.

The earliest mention of the second edition I could find is

25-Mar-96 20:20:04

Sb: #44220-B5 - VQT Endorsement!

Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI

My two novels, DEMON NIGHT and OTHERSYDE, both published in hardcover by E. P. Dutton, are currently out of print, as is my anthology, TALES FROM THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE. My nonfiction book, THE COMPLETE BOOK OF SCRIPTWRITING is being republished this fall in a new, totally rewritten and expanded (+100,000 words) edition from Writer's Digest.

jms

--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Now, do we think that's enough to change the "Several years before writing Changeling..." to at least something more specific like "More than a decade before writing Changeling..."? Or might that be considered synthesis? Steve ^{T • C} 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's going to be synthesis. There are too many unseen variables. What does the current source say specifically (at work, so that site is blocked for me)? Unless there is a source that gives a specific year, or specific range, then we cannot just create one based on circumstantial evidence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The current source says "Several years" IIRC. But a version of the script was published in 1996, and JMS claimed no prior knowledge of the case before being contacted by his "source". It's borderline for me, and I think we'd be able to mount a good argument for a vague "More than a decade before" remark; it would at least be better than "Several years", which could mean anything from 2 to 20 years. I think JMS is a little reluctant to reveal exactly when it was because people in forums have been keen wind him up about supposed omissions and inaccuracies. Maybe he's learning at long last not to feed the trolls. :) Steve ^{T • C} 13:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the above source claiming about Collins? That he was aware of the cast in 1996? Maybe, but this block of information:

Straczynski became fascinated with the case;[7] he carried out some research,[8] and wrote a spec script titled The Strange Case of Christine Collins. Several studios and independent producers optioned the script, but it never found a buyer.[9] Straczynski felt he lacked the time to devote to making the story work and only returned to the project following the cancellation of his television show Jeremiah in 2004.

does not reveal a time frame. He could have initially pitched the idea back in 1996, gave up, went back to TV. Then, 8 years later, when Jeremiah was canceled, he decided to try again only this time he spent an additional year of research on the case (Just guessing, because there are not dates for any of this that I can see). So yes, before writing "Changeling" was probably 10 years, but probably not before his first effort. Then again, it could be the same script just with some tweaks and a name change. You got to be careful with this. There is a difference between suggesting that he was contacted back in 1996, and implying that he lied about when he got the information (i.e. he knew about the case in 1996, but claimed no knowledge about it and instead spun a story about a source telling him years later).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm not implying he was lying or anything. JMS says he was contacted "several"/"many" (take your pick) years ago about the case; this was before writing The Strange Case of Christine Collins, which subsequently appeared in the 1996 scriptwriting book. That much is for sure. Then he left it until Jeremiah was cancelled, whereupon he did his year of research and re-wrote the script from scratch ("in eleven days"). So it's sure that he knew about the case at least in 1996 (because of the script book), but it might be synthesis for us to say so. JMS isn't claiming otherwise, it's just that he hasn't said the date explicitly in any reliable source. Steve ^{T • C} 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let's just leave it at that; there's no point even running the risk of OR. The current wording might be passive, but that's perfectly acceptable where no further information is forthcoming. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The original message was posted on CIS (Compu-Serve). Messages from CIS were reposted with Mr. Straczynski's permission to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5. The specific reposting is in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5/msg/7fdcda225496ffef . I could contact the Los Angeles County records department and ask when they started to burn the paper copies of their records. Alternately, there may be a Los Angeles Times article about cost savings for LA County due to converting paper documents to microfilm and/or electronic media. Both of these probably constitute original research. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately so. I wouldn't worry about it, or go to the trouble. When it comes down to it, it's only a minor point that I was probably only personally curious about; for the article, it doesn't matter so much. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

I'm wondering if anyone else feels there is scope for adding one non-free image to the article (it'd be nice to have something from the film itself). The strongest rationale would seem to be for something in the Visual effects section. There are a couple of behind-the-scenes featurettes that show before-and-after sequences, from which a screenshot could be taken, or perhaps something showing the use of Massive for the digital extras. Other options include the cityscape, something from the closing sequence, one to support the Cinematography section, or perhaps even the actors (if a strong rationale can be thought of). If anyone has any other ideas, please share! Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would want to see the before-and-after shots for visual effects to see if the differences are significant enough to illustrate for readers. I would definitely support a closing sequence shot, since an entire subsection is devoted to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a few low-res grabs of the closing sequence to get some feedback on the best choice: Option 1; Option 2; Option 3. Unfortunately, by the time the screen gets busier with streetcars and the like, the film has switched to black-and-white. Do any of these seem to fit well? Steve ^{T • C} 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the first one. Is there any chance of getting one that is higher resolution? Hope that was your plan. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of my inexperience in dealing with images, I wasn't sure at what resolution to use to meet fair-use, so went for 400px width based purely on those I saw in another film article recently. What's the highest you reckon we could get away with? Steve ^{T • C} 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. The screenshots I picked at Doomsday were 300px at the smallest dimension. Might be a bit much, though. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

# 4.3 Violent acts

Overall, this was a most excellent article. However, I felt the following paragraph perhaps not quite optimal.

"The scene featuring Northcott's execution by hanging has been perceived as "unbearable" due to its attention to detail, and as one of the most convincing pleas against the death penalty imaginable."

First off, regarding the attention to details - there have been several Hollywood movies of recent years that depict executions in explicit details. The Green Mile, The Life of David Gale, Dead Man Walking, Monster's Ball, all of the above had explicit and prolonged imagery focusing on the execution itself. In what way does this scene stand out to make it comparatively "unbearable"?

Secondly, the comment about the scenes function as a "plea against the death penalty", seem like musings of the author, rather than a substantiated consensus. I would think most drama portraying the execution of the innocent, serve as a more potent argument to this end.

Lastly, the phrase "has been perceived as "unbearable"". - I'm a novice at editing wikipedia, but from my limited understanding, isn't this a clear cut case of inappropriate "weasel words"?

Given the overall praise this article has received, I figured I'd post here to get some opinions, rather than directly edit.

Any thoughts on how this could be rewritten?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.242.143 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That part about the hanging might be better off if it is associated with the specific writer who wrote it, rather than having the part written in a passive tone. I agree with the above comment that the scene is similar to many other scenes in recent films; personally, I don't consider it specially unbearable. Gary King (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't think there's much of a need to provide attribution in a "Themes" section, as just about anyone's reading of the film is a valid viewpoint; all that matters for our purposes is that it comes from a reliable source. However, I get the feeling I'm going to be in a minority here, so I've gone ahead and reworded it anyway. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 08:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's much better. Thanks for taking my comment into consideration. :) (original poster) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyoun01 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! And while you're here, if you have any suggestions on retitling the section ("Violent acts" is really weak, IMO, but the best I could come up with at the time), we'd be glad to hear them. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That name sounds fine to me. I was thinking "Violence" but that seems more generic. Gary King (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the section multiple times and the phrase "Crime and Punishment" came to mind, although that would bring to mind Fyodor Dostoyevsky's book Crime and Punishment. The current title is, however, fine. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical facts and the film

How about a section discussing differences between historical facts and those depicted in the film?71.33.117.186 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as someone comes up with a reliable source directly comparing the film with the historical record, we could certainly look at adding something in. Though it seems we already have enough historical information; we could either trim the "Historical context" section some more, or there may even be scope for adding a couple of cited sentences to the "Writing" section (or somewhere else if felt appropriate). Steve ^{T • C} 23:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its fairly standard on film pages where the film is based on real events to compare the film's version of reality with what actually happened. I wouldn't want to trim the Historical Context too much more, because I think its important - moreso say than the some of the technical details on the special effects for instance; or the multitude of awards (not that these aren't important or relevant, just taking up a lot of space (see my comment below on length - maybe (eg) Changeling (box office and reception) and Changeling (production) needed ?)). You may then be able to fit on how it gots its name, as requested by someone else below :) The Yeti (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for adding in some kind of direct comparison, but to avoid the appearance of original research, specifically synthesis, this would have to be based on something other than our own observations, cited to a reliable secondary source. This kind of coverage has been largely lacking so far, and we already have pretty much everything in the article that's been written on this score. I'll give my thoughts on potential spin-off articles a little later in the thread below. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Length

Firstly it is a great article. Good work to all.

But its also becoming extremely long. I think you're going to have to look at spinning some of the sections off onto their own pages soon. Just a thought. The Yeti (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see what could reasonably be split off. I'm unconvinced that any section would work in a standalone context. I'm biased, obviously, but to me it stands well as a whole; as with many film articles I've come across, it's written so that many of the sections complement one another. It's long, but pretty much comprehensive by now (you allude in the section above to having room to fit other things in, but to be honest we have pretty much everything of note written about the film over the last three years), and at 10,281 words (readable prose) the article is only a little over the rough guidance given at Wikipedia:Article size (10,000). As you say above, the awards table does take up a lot of space, but because it comes right at the end of the article, with no further text sections following, that seems acceptable to me. Given these reasons, I think any issues over its length would be better addressed by seeing what trims can be made to the existing content before spinning off sub-articles. Further copy-edits should be able to bring it down some, as should discussions over the necessity for certain detail (especially in sections that cover the more technical aspects, such as the cinematography). Still, I don't want to appear combative, or especially infected with ownership issues, so it might be worthwhile seeing what opinions others have. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Name

What's with the name of this film, anyway? It's been bothering me for a while. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject. Dazuro

Hi. I believe the last paragraph of Changeling (film)#Writing should help. If you think the wording could be clearer in any way, please don't hesitate to amend the statement, or suggest a change here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, shoot. I read that section several times expecting to find an answer but somehow missed that part! Sorry to be a bother. Dazuro (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)