Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Before he became king of a nation,

he was terminating foes deftly with his sword,
crushing them, driving them before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women.

Before he married a princess,

he dallied with an Amazon,
pacifying gremlins with her hand in hand.

Before he achieved all of this,

he was Conan the Barbarian!

Disclaimer: Not all links above are directly relevant to the subject of review...

This article was a project that took more than one year (with breaks due to burnout and real-life issues) in the making. I am planning to take the article to FAC and would appreciate comments to improve it further. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by David Fuchs
{{doing}} I sincerely hope you've seen the great Conan the Barbarian: the Musical on Youtube, because I haven't actually watched the movie and so that's my only introduction to this topic :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'K then… overall, a very solid article. There's some prose editing that could happen, not really along the lines of grammar problems per se (as you'd know from your copyedits for my work I probably can't find much) but more long phrases that could be streamlined, I'm not going to really list them and will just tweak and post the history for your review on my own time. Now, to actual contents!

  • Do we really need a full-on description of the plot as its own paragraph in the lead? I understand outlining the entire plot, but when it boils down to it, "good guy does X, Y, and Z; good guy wins" is mostly what you need. Compared to the massive amount of research you've compiled, the lead is somewhat overvaluing plot compared to production, et al.
  • Is including the opening narration really defensible? Same goes for the later (cut) intro. It's interesting, sure, but not really supported with enough justification.
  • Not sure if this is going to be a trend (I've just started wading through the article as I type!) but I note: "Helping the barbarian to kill a giant snake and cutting him down from crucifixion, the thief also cries for his companion during Valeria's cremation; "being a Cimmerian, [Conan] will not cry for himself." " -- These sorts of quotes should probably be attributed, especially since they follow after a different quote by someone else (Ebert).
    • The same goes for lines such as these: "A "rather flat, salt-marshy area near the Mediterranean, in Almerimar", was where Valeria and Subotai fought off ghosts to save Conan and where the final battle with Doom's forces was fought. "Stonehenge-like ruins" were erected and truckloads of sea sand piled into mounds that reached nine meters in height."
  • "Ideas for a film about Robert E. Howard's barbarian character were raised as early as 1970" -- this is Mr. Passive Voice Lover himself, asking exactly who raised these ideas?
  • "The film crews burned down the Cimmerian village and the Temple of Set after completing filming on each set." -- the sources might not be able to answer this, but why burn it down rather than striking the set?
  • File:Anvil of Crom (sample) by Basil Poledouris.ogg - Damn, this sounds eerily like the theme to Total Recall without the fourth whole step, complete with clanking! And the resemblance is even noted in the article! Nice!
  • Best ending line to a Wikipedia article ever. 'Nuff said.

Really, I think it's an exceptional article in most respects, it just needs to make clear where some content is coming from. I'll try and provide some line edits soon, but I've got some real-world issues that may be cropping up so if I don't get to it in the next week, I'm not snubbing you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments. Yomangani has been doing copy-editing, which is doing great, so I hope the article is really shaping up. On your concerns,
  • "full-on description of the plot as its own paragraph in the lead?": That is my attempt at a summary of a summary (Plot). I feel there should be a very brief synopsis in the lede (I also agree that if we boil it down to the very fundamentals, the film is simply what Peary terms as a rescue a cult member and revenge film). I fear that covering more details of production (which is the main bulk of the article) would scare off readers, especially if they are those more interested in what the movie is about, but I am open to any suggestions on what to include in / exclude from the lead that would be more relevant to our readers.
  • "including the opening narration really defensible?": I was including them on two grounds. Firstly, they imbue a certain "mystique" (the Howardian feel) to the text. Secondly, they help to illustrate the changes between the initial dream and the final cut. Being brief text and although set off in a quote box, I think they are not plagiarism nor plain decorations.
  • Quotes and attribution: Ahh... ""being a Cimmerian, [Conan] will not cry for himself" is actually said by the character, I have noted it as such. "Ideas for a film about ..." was announced by Carter. As for the rest, I believe Yomangani's edit have helped to reduce the need for direct attribution (by cutting down the length of quotes to basic facts of the statements). I appreciate any help to identify any remaining quotes that would require direct attribution.
  • Burning down the sets: Unfortunately, the sources do not say; it seems like it was a standard industry practice then. Note that the Temple's destruction was worked into the script (Conan burned it down).
No problems, take your time. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Yomangani
A few comments:
  • It is certainly thorough and that seems to be what we aim for in articles nowadays, but I still think a bit of pruning wouldn't go amiss. Some of the detail could be broken off into sub-articles if you really can't bear to see it go.
  • It also suffers from being a little US-centric especially in the release section - that's probably because of the sources, but you can't find any more information on the releases outside the US then you could cut some of the detail on the US to balance it up.
  • I think it skirts close to BLP issues around the discussion of Oliver Stone - I'd try to find more sources to back up those claims.
  • I have left a couple of comments in HTML comment tags in the text where you could make things clearer.
  • Why is the country in the infobox listed as United States? Dino De Laurentiis was Italian and he was responsible for financing and production (Infoboxes...nothing but trouble).
  • ... and "trio" needs to be treated as a plural or you end up like this Yomanganitalk 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with regard to my last point, according to our article on Collective noun: In American English, collective nouns almost invariably take singular verb forms (formal agreement). In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. Which means that rather than treating trio as a plural, you should get rid of it. Yomanganitalk 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the copy-edits! I think it is an outstanding job and has pruned my over-verbose (and clunky) writing effectively. Although some of it seemed to have changed the content; I will be bring them here later for discussion and to work them out.
  • "a bit of pruning wouldn't go amiss": Well, that is a reason why I raised it for peer review. As the author (who worked over a year on it), I think I would be too entrenched to determine what would be unnecessary without advice. I hope fellow editors and readers can go through and discuss what would not be missed if they are taken from the article.
  • "US-centric": Yes, it is due to the sources. It was by chance that I found the few French and Spanish sources. I do not think though that a primary focus on the US is undue; it is a US film (see De Laurentiis below).
  • Stone BLP: Those drug addiction statements are sourced to Stone himself. He freely made the admission and let the interviews be published; several books about him talk of his addiction phase. I do not see how it would be a BLP matter.
  • HTML comment tags: Will do Below
  • De Laurentiis: It is a bit complicated story. De Laurentiis is Italian and started his film producing career in his home country. He later ran into problems with the authorities (taxes...) and fled to the US, where he then continued his business (after Conan, he founded DEG, which then collapsed as stated in the article). As far as things are concerned, Conan was started by a US citizen, "co-produced" with an Italian who does business purely in the US (at that time), funded in parts by US companies, and more importantly, copyrighted first in the US. I think the evidence points to it as a US film. We could remove the Infobox... but I think it would make its way back sooner or later with backers on its inclusion.
  • Collective nouns: I will try to get rid of them. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Is this acceptable? Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine. Yomanganitalk 12:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thulsa Doom's beheading was filmed with a dummy in place of Jones;": Eh, yeah, that could be construed as an obvious statement, but I had to write some way to say it uses a dummy.
    I was just trying to be funny there - it's not really a problem. Yomanganitalk 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Favoritism for the individualistic theme is not confined to the United States;": What I meant to say was that the foreign audience were also enamored with the theme of individualism (as later expanded in the Critical reception) and critics abroad also noticed the theme. I have tried to clarify this.
  • "On the other hand, Vincent Canby, Carlos Clarens, and Pascal Mérigeau were unanimous in their opinion that the film's depicted violence failed to meet their expectations.": Short explanation: Not violent enough. Long explanation: Some of them based their opinion on the pacing and concept of the action film, the others think that Howard's work was very brutal. I have tried to clarify this. Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edit: "Bearing a close resemblance to Frazetta's visualization, the cinematic Conan was intended by the film's director to be 'a Northern European mythic hero'." → "John Milius, the film's director, intended the film Conan to be 'a Northern European mythic hero' bearing a close resemblance to Frazetta's ideal."
    Milius never said he wants his lead to be close in appearance to Frazetta's ideal. The closest statement for his opinion on the resemblance was that he found Schwarzenegger to be physically matching with the perception of what Conan should be like.
    Perhaps you could just drop the reference to Frazetta in that sentence. It's strongly implied in other places in the article and seems a bit awkward here. "John Milius, the film's director, intended the film Conan to be 'a Northern European mythic hero'". Yomanganitalk 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edit:"He and the filming crew coordinated their schedules, allowing him to fly off in the middle of filming and complete the play's last stretch of performances before returning to resume his role as Doom." → "He and the film crew coordinated their schedules, allowing him complete the play's last stretch of performances before returning to resume his role as Doom."
    I am not certain if this change accurately reflects the situation. The sequence was Jones started in the play. The play then went on a break. Jones flew to Spain to start on Conan. After a week, he flew back to resume his role in the play. The play ended its run a few weeks later and Jones flew back to Spain to continue filming Conan. Quite a convoluted situation.
    I don't think the exact logistics are necessary. Maybe cut it further and say something like "He and the crew coordinated their schedules to allow Jones to perform in the play." Yomanganitalk 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2c from Casliber

I wonder if we can find a source for the fact that the skeleton comes to life in the book but doesn't in the film.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By book, are you referring to the novelization of the film or "The Thing in the Crypt"? Regardless, I see no such observations among the sources I consulted (there is a tidbit about Cobb and Milius's difference in view over the skeleton's portrayal). One might use primary sources, but that would likely mean this is trivia (secondary sources do not consider it notable). Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I meant from "The Thing in the Crypt" - and I should have added "secondary" to the sentence above. One of my interests in how books convert to films is how the story changes and why - so there is that segment from "The Thing in the Crypt" that is included in the film (dang, its a long time since I've read these!) - story tweaks, casting tweaks, directors' thoughts etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... in this case, the sources for this article discuss only on the source of the "borrowed" themes/scenes (and in a general way). They do not go into detailed differences; although the "film Conan != book Conan" has some exposition, thanks to the strong beliefs of faction involved. Jappalang (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
I'm a comin', I'm a comin', I'm a comin. Whew. Sorry for the delay. Starting work. Movies have never been my thing, but I'll see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a starter:

  • Lede
The second paragraph seems much too detailed. Basically, the entire plot of the movie is told. Why is that necessary?
"A concerted attempt" A concerted effort?
" of legal wrangling" omit.
"recruited Schwarzenegger for the lead role and Oliver Stone to draft a script." Much more effective in my view to say "recruited Schwartzenegger as lede and Oliver Stone as scriptwriter." Shorter too. Always a consideration. This is a massive article and may suffer for that at FAC.
" the cinematic landscapes in Almería" Cut back to the place name. Much too wordy, especially for the lede.
"and left the imagery of him as the barbarian in the minds of the people" again shorten perhaps "and a popular image as a barbarian" Not quite right, I fear, but that is the general idea. Perhaps "typecast him"?
The sequel need not be named at this stage of the article. I would pipe it from the words "a sequel"

That's to start. I think this article needs some trimming by the principals, but I'll point out what I can as I go through.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fuchs also questioned the story in the lede, so I will just tweak it. Have a look. I initially wrote "concerted effort"; Yomangani changed it to "attempt". I think it is because Pressman and Summer's project did not succeed (it was effectively sold to De Laurentiis)? "Typecast" would not be a good word; Schwarzenegger is more remembered (typecast) for the type of role ("icy, brawny, and inexpressive—yet somehow endearing") that Conan encapsulate. He is not asked to play barbarians through his career, but the concept of him as a barbarian proved to be memorable. Jappalang (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "attempt" to avoid the quick repetition of "effort" (...Pressman, however, lacked capital for a sustained effort). Another synonym in either location would do just as well. Yomanganitalk 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? Jappalang (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I'm late for the party, but here are a few more comments which might be helpful. I've only been able to read as far as the end of the Filming section:-

A few prose quibbles
  • "The fascist angle factored in most of the criticisms of the film". This is very odd wording. When something is "factored in", it means that something is taken into account when making a calculation or a decision. That meaning doesn't apply hear; I believe the word required is "featured".
  • Is it normal practice to incorporate home media sales in a film's gross takings? I'd have thought these sales were a separate issue from the box office.
    • Not quite. The gross takings is basically whatever the film earns (even television licensing); box office takings would be distinguished as "box office gross" or "grossed $xxx at the box office". Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot section, Conan is twice described as "sneaking" into the temple, which somehow doesn't quite fit his image. Perhaps alter the second: "Conan silently enters the temple, where Doom..."
    • Howard's barbarian is "a thief, a reaver, a slayer"; he does "sneak" to steal and to slay. Nonetheless, I changed the first "sneak" to "infiltrate", which better fits his use of a disguise. His second entry is a sneaky one though. Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "satisfied the readers' fantasies..." → "satisfied readers' fantasies..." I would also remove the word "being" in the phrase which follows.
    • Done on the first part. I am not sure over the second. Just in case the case is not clear, the readers' fantasies were of imagining themselves as the barbarian. Would "being" still be appropriate in that case, or would it be better removed? Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "languages and literatures"; we normally consider "literature" as plural, thus "languages and literature".
  • "Mako was another actor brought onto the project..." Despite the link, as this is the first mention of Mako I think a word or two of introduction/identification would help the reader. Perhaps "The Japanese actor Mako Iwamatsu, known professionally as "Mako", was brought onto the project..."
  • Next sentence: "...and was nominated for an Academy and a Tony Award." → "...and had been nominated for an Academy and a Tony Award."
  • "Several scenes in the first half, such as Conan's crucifixion ordeal, which was taken straight out of "A Witch Shall be Born"; and the climbing of the Tower of Serpents, which was derived from "The Tower of the Elephant", were retained" Retained from where? (and the sentences's punctuation, with an intrusive semicolon, looks odd).
A few non-prose issues
-
  • karate should be wikilinked at first rather than second mention
  • "The film crews burned down the Cimmerian village and the Temple of Set after completing filming on each set." Why didn't they simply dismantle the sets? Why did they have to burn them down?
    • The temple was meant to be burned down in the script. The village was as well (however, there is no source stating the reason behind its burning; Milius just said "When we finally burned that village everybody was really happy." Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General point: on more than one occasion the text is squeezed by images on each side of the prose. The top part of the article looks a little crowded wih images and I wonder if they are all necessary? Or whether it would be possible to relocate some to the lower part of the article where images are much scarcer.

I'm not sure that I'll be able to give the same attention to the rest of the article, but I'll keep watching the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Conan_the_Barbarian_(1982_film)/archive1&oldid=1044075011"