Talk:Che (2008 film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Damiens quote deletion

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
— Wiki Quote Policy

Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has worked extensively on this article, here's my two cents. I do think the quotes are valuable and useful to the article, I don't think that ALL of them need to be highlighted the way that they are. Really, they should be integrated into the other sections of the article. As it stands, the way the article looks now it will never been promoted to GA or FA status which is ultimately the goal, here.--J.D. (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

J.D., you have done excellent and valuable work on this article, and thus I would trust you to incorporate some of the quotes into the articles text, or gladly assist you if you wish. I also agree that the information is vital, and should be preserved if possible. Maybe you will find a {quote} format less aesthetically intrusive than a {Cquote} format? Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! Let me take at the quotes and I'll see what I can do with them. I would say maybe some can go in the Production section and maybe the Reaction section as Soderbergh is responding to criticism leveled at the film. I ran into this with the JFK article which also met with a widely divided critical reaction.--J.D. (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've taken most of the quotes and integrated them into other sections of the article -- mostly the Development section. I think this looks a lot better now. There was only a couple I deleted outright just 'cos they didn't seem to fit anywhere and weren't really that necessary.--J.D. (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:DeltoroCHE.jpg

The image File:DeltoroCHE.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Well, Che (film) and Guerrilla (film) are obviously about one film. so they should be meged.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than merging, I would suggest just deleting both Guerrilla (film) & The Argentine, as all their info is already contained in this article. Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A deletion of Guerrilla (film) & The Argentine articles is included in meging them to Che (film). You can't merge them and keep them as well. But what are two other articles supposed to mean? Why are there § articles about 1 movie?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support merger - Guerrilla (film) & The Argentine should redirect here. The movie is eventually being split into two parts, but initial release is in roadshow format as one film. There is no good reason separating the articles. It just makes it harder to find information. --Stomme (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stomme. All of the info from Guerrilla & The Argentine is already in this Che article. Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. We should get rid of the separate articles and just have the Che film one.--J.D. (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing unanimous support, and no opposition, who will now do this? Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Count me in BUT I think there should be separate sections in the main article so that the Argentine & Guerrilla parts are distinguished. They don't have to be lengthy articles, just brief plot summaries. Tommyt (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm trying to work on a plot summaries for both parts. If I have the time, I'll try to get something posted by the end of the weekend.--J.D. (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it J.D., I am sure you will do an excellent job. As for these other 2 articles, I feel that they should be requested for deletion. Anyone disagree? Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, how do we go about getting these two articles deleted? I think that it's pretty unanimous that they should be.--J.D. (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why bother? Redirects are cheap. :) Unless editors start trying to create separate articles (for which we can protect redirects), there's no issue with these titles pointing here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Domestic" box office results?

Hello Censei, nice to meet you. Doesn't "domestic" imply that the Che (film) is an American one i.e. - America being the "domestic" place of origin? This in fact would be incorrect would it not, as the film was primarily funded via Spain and France (with no American $), not shot in the dominate language of the U.S. (English), not filmed inside the U.S., and not even released in the U.S. until many other nations (notably the aforementioned Spain & France and even in the U.S. in very limited release). In these places it has seen some success (especially in Spain) where Del Toro was awarded the Male Goya award just this week and in France where Del Toro won best male at Cannes. I assume from your edit summary of “Soderbergh ... epic fail” that you are not a fan of the director, this is fine and of course your prerogative. However, are you sure you are not possibly letting your dislike of him (or possibly the films subject) cause you to see a low U.S. box office total as it being a low “domestic” turnout and ipso facto – Soderbergh failed etc? Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I think that the term "domestic" applies to the fact that Wikipedia (the English version) is North American based and so when you talk about "domestic" box office you're talking about how a film does in North America as opposed to the rest of the world.--J.D. (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats my angle. CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure then that such "domestic" results are taking into account all of North America (U.S., Canada, & Mexico)? Or are we merely implying that the English wikipedia refers solely to the United States? (to say nothing of England and a host of other nations who predominately speak English). Moreover, shouldn't there be a clear emphasis that "domestic" implies America etc? Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the english Wikiepdia, so its all english speaking countries. CENSEI (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Censei, are you implying that the "domestic" box office take is in reference to how much the film has made in "all English speaking countries"? Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, only the US. CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

+ This site (the same one you cite in the article) puts the box office take at $ 2,000,000 in the U.S. thus far. (This is the figure I keep seeing as well). Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeahhhh ..... ummmm ... that movie was released in 1969 and was directed by Richard Fleischer and starred Omar Sharif. Please read your sources more carefully. CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes has the U.S. Gross over 1,000,000. Far more than the 239,000 you are citing in the article. Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That source does not indicate where the money came from. CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I finally found a detailed breakdown of the "domestic" (US) box office numbers for Che. As of Feb 1 the domestic gross is $ 844,000 . detailed breakdown here. If there are no objections I am going to replace the domestic #'s with this figure. Thanks Censei, for causing me to read carefully. Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau: Box Office Mojo also supports your stat and that's the standard bearer source that most Wikipedia film articles use for box office stats for a film. So, I would use that one as your source.--J.D. (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Box office results should absolutely not use the term domestic unless it's a US film that was solely, or primarily, released in that country. Come on now, I think we should all know that Wikipedia being hosted on US soil doesn't make it US-centric... in theory. :P Narco (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Narco, that was my initial thought as well ... however I am not sure if J.D. & Censei agree. To me the only relevant figure for this particular film is the total gross globally (as it doesn't really have a traditional nation of origin) being a conglomerate of French & Spanish funding, with American & Latin American actors, shot in Puerto Rico, Bolivia, & Spain, spoken in Spanish, but featuring a well known American director and actor etc. I feel that for any film “domestic” should never be used, and should rather be replaced with the nation (for instance "U.S. results" etc). In this case I believe that only the global take is relevant. Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at how Box Office Mojo breaks it down and that's the source most Wikipedia film articles use for box office stats. I think that should be the standard we use for this article.--J.D. (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no plot?

I've watched the first part of this film and didn't understand the details.

Can someone write a plot for this film for my reference please?--Alasdair 12:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done - for both parts.--J.D. (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work as always J.D. Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I finally found some time to do it!--J.D. (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FMAFan and reverts over sentence

User:FMAFan1990 I believe may have violated WP:3RR by reverting myself twice 1 & 2 and J.D. once 3 (in 24 hours), over inclusion of the same sentence. Now rather than filing a report and escalating the disagreement, I wanted to provide this space for FMAFan to provide his/her rationale for why he/she believes this sentence should be included at the end of the lead:

"Originally, Focus Features was to handle distribution, but sold the rights to IFC Films."

When reverting me the last time FMAFan, you claimed the reason "Because it's true". Now why I don't deny that particular aspect of the sentence, I don't find it relevant who "was" going to handle distribution, only who DID eventually do so. Why do you believe such a point is worthy of inclusion? Furthermore, what are other editors views on inclusion of this sentence? Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past, Focus Features was listed as the distributor of the films. Somewhere along the line, they gave these rights to IFC. I feel that this transition of rights is notable. I consider this to be a precedent, as it mentions that Miramax was to distribute that film, but gave those rights to Magnolia Pictures later. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FMAFan, thanks for your response. Do you also believe that the appropriate location for such a statement is at the end of the lead? Or in the lead at all? (your example for instance has it down inside the article’s body). Upon reflection I personally would be ok with such a mention down in the article, however as it presently and ambiguously appears in the lead, it does not seem to be appropriately & contextually placed. Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking for a reliable source about Focus being attached to distribution. I have seen a couple of blogs mentioning it from last year, and a few promotional items are credited to Focus. The info really doesn't belong in the lead (especially uncited), so I will move it to distribution for now to be figured out later. Had it been a documented political motive or something similar, it might belong there, but probably not simply as a piece of knowledge. --Stomme (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So, has anybody been able to dig up any concrete proof from a reliable source that Focus Features was to handle distribution. I'm trying to remember, but I think that around the time of the Cannes screening there was a rumor that they might distribute it but I think that it didn't go far.--J.D. (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Reads Biased

It seems like everything said about the film is positive, despite receiving mixed reviews (brilliant is mentioned over and over). Everything about the Cuba protesters seems to be tied up with a selective quote that makes them look like the bad guys and the director as a heroic/intelligent (take your pick) savior. This article needs to be less POV. I know Marxists have a hard time with this, but this article stinks compared to other Wikipedia articles and reads more like Cuban propaganda designed to sound fair but actually isn't when you look deeper than the surface. I want to emphasize, it's the selection of quotes and references that is biased. Someone cherry picked by deleting anything negative about the film. JettaMann (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello JettaMann, nice to meet you. To your concerns: (1) The word "brilliant" is only mentioned 3 times in the whole article (twice in the Cannes review section and once in the General review) each time by a different reviewer. However, this is a common descriptive term for reviewers who were pleased with a film, and each time they are quoted. (2) "Everything about the film is positive" = with all due respect, I am not sure which article you are reading.

Below I am listing some of the verbatim critiques that appear in the current article:

:"doesn’t feel epic - just long", "structurally fractured", "absence of darker more contradictory revelations of his nature leaves Che bereft of complexity", "defiantly pious and boring", "Out-perversing Gus Van Sant's Milk", "without providing a glimmer of charm or narrative coherence", "it is, nonetheless a fairy tale", "moves from faith to impotence ... which is certainly a valid reading of Communism in the 20th century", "the second half of the film borderline deadly", "Che is twice as long as it needs to be", "only half the movie it should have been", "a B-", "Its excessive length and rambling scenes also make it maddening", "oddly bland and unrevealing", "total flatness of feeling at the climax of each movie"

If you believe this is insufficient or Wp:Undue, realize all editors are free to propose WP:NPOV additions with their WP:Reliable references. (3) The Miami protest section is taken from sympathetic locally based sources, and even includes a link to a video of the protest. How do you believe it should read instead? (4) Your comment that "Marxists have a hard time with POV" is itself POV and unwarranted here. All posters should Wp:Assume Good Faith and not doubt the sincerity of those who have volunteered their time to construct the article. (5) In lieu of your comments, I am afraid that any objective depiction [may] "stink" of "Cuban propaganda"; however as is policy of wikipedia, your additions and suggestions are still welcome and will be included as long as they meet Wp:Concensus. (6) I would add that this article is about the movie Che and not the man Che Guevara. From your comments one could reasonably conclude that you hold a negative view of the man (which is fine and possibly justified in your case), however a Wikipedia article is not the place to voice those personal frustrations, but instead to document the views of other published writers in a NPOV manner. We reflect the sources & reality - not create it, thus if they mostly (and in your view incorrectly) seem skewed to a favorable position, then unfortunately that is how the article would read. Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Elaborator"?

In the Guerrilla section, one sentence reads "Guevara's revolutionary contact has botched elaborator preparations and given away their identity much to his chagrin". I'm wondering if the author meant to say "collaborator preparations"? I don't think elaborator is actually a word, thoughts? Tommyt (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a typo. Fixed it. Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was supposed to be "elaborate". I'll fix it.--J.D. (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I thought it was another attempt to invent a word that would somehow wind up in the dictionary, like "efforting" or "evilness". Tommyt (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DVD reviews

I've removed the links to these DVD reviews for 2 reasons. They really don't belong in the External links section but under a sub-section like Home Video or something like that. However, from experience with past GA and FA reviews these sources will get rejected by any reviewer because they don't consider a site like Den of Geek reliable or reputable enough. We need something like a review from The New York Times, IGN, etc. I mean, in the current FA review they didn't consider DVDTimes a reputable source for the UK release of the DVD. I would hold off anyways as there are rumblings that the Criterion Collection is going to be releasing a special edition sometime this year.

DVD Reviews by Michael Leader: Part 1 The Argentine / Part 2 Guerilla

I believe that the article could potentially benefit from a section on the end discussing the DVD release. Especially now that the release has occurred in Britain and soon to be the U.S. - Agree/Disagree? Now that the article is a GA, I want to see if there is any objection before I create such a section. Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that most of the sources that we'll find for the UK release will come from sources that a FA reviewer will not consider as reputable (see above) unless you can find one in The Guardian or Sight and Sound. I would say, maybe hold off until the announcement for the upcoming Criterion edition happens.--J.D. (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did find a link to a reputable source for a review of the UK DVD, here.--J.D. (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinema Verite?

I would dispute that this is a film shot in a verite style. The only element that to me appears to closely resemble either cinema verite or direct cinema would be the black and white sequences set in New York from part 1. Whilst the rest of the film certainly uses realist tropes, such as long takes and some hand-held footage, it is both: debatable whether these are specific to cinema verite style film making; unlikely that the use of these methods permit strident claims that this is a film shot in that specific style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie scarfe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources repeatedly used that description, and so we do. Your analysis, although probably correct - would be WP:OR and inapplicable here. Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gross revenue

Resolved

Where does the $30 million number come from? I've seen the number $50 million around the internet. Looking at the box office mojo web site it looks like the number has to be higher than $30 million.--216.239.65.224 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem with Box Office Mojo being used for revenue is that it only includes the totals from the U.S. ("Domestic") and Bulgaria, Puerto Rico, and Romania ("Foreign") link. Through compiling these numbers they place the "international" gross revenue total at 1.7 million link. However, Che made most of its money in Spain, France and Mexico (plus Japan & Australia) - all country totals excluded from Box Office Mojo's calculations. Do you have another link for Mojo that calculates the real global total gross which is at least 30 million per the already given source? (and that would be pre-DVD release which will occur in January - something else Mojo does not factor in) Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These pages indicate that the first part had a gross of $33,195,887 and the second part $7,583,354, a total of over $40 million. THE ARGENTINE & GUERILLA --- 216.239.65.238 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 216, thanks for finding the new more informative Mojo links. These should be included and the article adjusted - and thus I have done so. Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Home DVD release suppliments

This section was tagged with an advert template by lugnuts (talk · contribs) and to my mind a large part of the problem was the list of Supplements. My removal of these has been reverted with the edit summary that they are relevant. I fail to see this relevance and agree with lugnuts that they are advertising. Suppliments are what I would expect to see on a site selling the DVD and I am not sure what encyclopaedic value the have, especially in the list format. I would also suggest it falls outside criteria 3b of the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it could be converted to prose and shortened up a bit with just the more important features mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to condense and trim the section with respect to your stated concerns. Let me know what you think? Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed a bit more and softened some of the wording. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Che (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Che (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Che (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Che (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)