Talk:Big Fish/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why no Oscar?

Why wasn't it nominated for an Academy Award? I thought it was a fantastic movie.

  • It was nominated—for Best Original Score (Danny Elfman). --DanielNuyu 08:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Korean name

Why is a Korean alternate name given for this film? Is that necessary? Badagnani 02:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Pass

I made two tiny copyedits; you might want to double-check them to ensure they were reworded properly. Other than that, no issues. Chubbles 06:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

added a few lines about Will Bloom

I rewrote the 'plot' section slightly in order to expand on Will Bloom (for instance, mentioning that his wife was pregnant when he returned to Alabama) and his relationship with his father. Although the summary as it stood was a good basic factual account of the movie's plot, it didn't really explain the conflict between Will and Edward, and therefore missed an important emotional punch of the film. I also reworded or reordered a few other lines to make the changes flow smoothly. I hope nobody objects to these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.121.9.254 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Depp-less

I assume it's mentioned in here somewhere that this is one of the few Burton films WITHOUT Johnny Depp in it at all (nevermind not in the lead role)! JaffaCakeLover (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering Burton did three films without Depp after Edward Scissorhands, this isn't notable. Alientraveller (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Auburn University"

This qualifies as original research, I suppose, but perhaps there is proof somewhere: the onscreen college campus was actually filmed at Huntingdon College in Montgomery (I am a graduate, and know the locale well). No scenes were ever filmed at Auburn, as it was disallowed by the trustees. PScooter63 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to genre

User:Andrzejbanas, Big Fish is classified by reliable sources as a fantasy adventure film, not a comedy drama. I don't understand your edit. The "source" you cite is an All Movie blurb written by a yoga instructor. This is not a replacement for the reliable sources already in use in the aritcle. Have you seen Big Fish? It is not a comedy. The reliable sources already in the article classify the film as a fantasy adventure, not a comedy. Please do some actual research. An academic book like A2 Film Studies (published by Taylor & Francis) correctly categorized the film as a fantasy, sub-genre adventure.[1] It is firmly established as a fantasy film.[2][3][4]While it is true that any film can have comedic elements, it is properly classified as a fantasy adventure per the reliable sources. Further, it does not require any citations in the lead. The reviewers and even the director in the article classify it as a fantasy, not a comedy. The entire premise of the film is based on the death of the main character. There is nothing funny about this. Assuming that you haven't read the article or actually seen the film, you probably shouldn't be making erroneous changes like this. Instead, you should do the research. In the book Into the Dark, screenwriter Craig Detweiler makes it very clear this is not a comedy:

Burton clearly relished the opportunity to construct a magical version of the South, complete with witches, giants, and an enchanted forest. Yet the film plays such mythology as straight, or at least as sincere in our hero's eyes. In Burton's fanciful film, a son's commitment to logic confronts his father's tall tales. Will Bloom returns home to visit his dying father, Ed.

Clearly, this is not a comedy, and the fantasy is played straight, i.e. "to do something without jokes, tricks, subterfuge". Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've provided a reliable source that has been proved perfectly fine by MOS:FILM. I'm not denying that it isn't a fantasy film either as I left the category for the film in there. Your source for "adventure" isn't specific in mentioning this film. You need to find a specific source for that one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Andrzejbanas, your "reliable source" is not a reliable secondary source nor does it support your claim that the film is a comedy. You've merely linked to a website that erroneously categorizes the film as a "comedy" and immediately below asks visitors to submit corrections. The actual content of the web page, which is nothing more than a database summary, calls it a fantasy film. All of the reliable sources written by experts under the watch of editors refs to this film as a fantasy adventure. The only person who questions this is you. No reliable sources about the film call it a "comedy", not even the source you added. The previous version of the article is fully supported as sourced, and does not require any sources in the lead section. It sounds like you have not seen the film nor read the article or reviewed the sources. The film is a fantasy about an adventure by the main character. You have been corrected on this point. As film experts have said, the fantasy is played "straight". This means it is not a comedy. Please take your concerns to the film project because you are misusing sources and misunderstanding what they say and how we use them. Nowhere does the source you have added say that this film is a comedy. It merely shows that someone (probably the yoga instructor who added it) erroneously added the wrong genre category. If you would like to explain what makes this film a comedy or provide actual reliable sources that describe it as a comedy film, I am willing to listen, but so far you don't have any sources that support this strange claim. Again, this is not a comedy film. It is a film about a dying father and his reconciliation with his son, and his ability to reach out to his son using fantasy and adventure to communicate. Since the fantasy adventure is played straight (without jokes) where is the element of comedy here? And where are the reviewers who talk about this alleged comedy? Why doesn't the director or the cast say a single word about comedy? Why hasn't the studio or their marketing executives sold this film as a comedy? Could it be because it isn't a comedy film? All comedy films share specific elements and themes. Which ones do you find in this film? I can't find any nor could any reliable source on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
My reliable source is supported from WP:FILM. So don't bother bringing that up. Can you find me something saying it's not notable? It's used by the New York Times and Microsoft in their databases. So it's hardly a poor source.
  • None of your sources call it a fantasy adventure. They all say fantasy, which works for me...sort of. All the "fantastical" elements in the film are all from stories from the father, and not actual events. So how is it real?
  • Some more sources for the genre I suggested: here (In the hands of director Tim Burton, “Big Fish,” a comedy-drama about a son reconnecting with his father on his deathbed), Comedy-drama. Empire refers to the film as "comedy, drama, fantasy". Not to mention that the article even mentions "[http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/?param=/film/23711 nominee for best musical or comedy". I don't see any claims for musical for this film...so....
  • "ll of the reliable sources written by experts under the watch of editors refs to this film as a fantasy adventure." Interesting, you also say "he previous version of the article is fully supported as sourced, and does not require any sources in the lead section. It sounds like you have not seen the film nor read the article or reviewed the sources.". I have seen it, but even if I haven't, It's not up to us to decide what the genre of a film is per WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. So I don't have to explain it. I just have to find sources.
  • "Why doesn't the director or the cast say a single word about comedy?", per WP:RS and WP:SUBJECTIVE, we need third-party sources to describe the genre.
  • "Why hasn't the studio or their marketing executives sold this film as a comedy?" see above.
  • Generally, it's not about who made it. We need third-party sources. I've found several specific ones here. If you want to discuss it further, I think we can take it to the talk page of the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Andrzejbanas, this is not a comedy film. The article is already a GA and has been vetted. It does not require sources in the lead section as the body is fully sourced. I don't need to find any sources, they are already in the article. What you are doing is called cherry picking and is no how we edit articles. Again, if this is a comedy as you claim, what makes it a comedy? I will discuss here, not on the talk page. Please explain exactly what makes this a comedy film. Was it marketed as a comedy? The previous version of the article was accurate according to reliable sources in the article. Cherry picking to prove a point isn't how to do research and write articles. Explain, using your own words, why the lead should call this film a comedy and cite the best sources that discuss comedy in this film, not passing mention of the term or cherry picked by you, but actual examples of comedy and reasons for calling this a comedy film. You may want to also look at the source material, Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions. A database category is not a reliable source, and I do not understand why you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps since we can't agree on the genre I think we can agree on some things. We can't just lump down a novel's title as a third-party source on a genre. I don't think fantasy should apply as the fantastical things that happen in the film are just exaggerated stories from the father, not an actual fantasy setting or events. Ditto on adventure for that reason. If we can't agree, perhaps we should just cut the genres out of the lead and let the users decide for themselves. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big Fish. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Fish. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Fish/Archive_1&oldid=1165141238"