Talk:The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

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

French Film?[edit]

Someone added the categorie French Films at the bottom, but the article makes no mention of a French production company, French shooting locations, etc. Is this a mistake, or is the article not clarifying how Parnassus is a French film? - 98.221.120.104 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails to make mention. You may add the information if you wish. see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/
Quinxorin (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Content[edit]

Please allow reasonable time to compile content for this article. I seem to be the only person working on it and I only have access to the internet for short periods of time. I invite others to share information, ideas and content to flesh out this subject. LEX LETHAL 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article using available citations. Should be pretty up-to-date in the reliable sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Ledger[edit]

someone changed "heath ledger" to "zombie heath ledger" in the sidebar. it directs to the article on zombies, rather than the article on heath ledger. someone should prolly fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.98 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone visiting the talk page, there is no information about how Ledger's death will affect production. There is no verifiable information about the size of his role and if he had already filmed his scenes or not. Please do not speculate in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, it is not known if he was in the "midst" of filming. The CBS 2 article only cites an anchor at WCBS who stated that based on the fact that the movie was currently in production. No statement has been made regarding whether he had begun filming his scenes, whether he had completed them, or if he was actually in the "midst" of filming. Given that production is in London, is moving to Canada, and he was found in Manhatten indicates that he probably was not involved in the current location shooting.--Ahecht (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? "He... was in the midst of filming The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus." It's speculative to say outside of the independent source how much he did, if at all. Traveling isn't difficult these days. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shows he had been in London the weekend before. No indication of how far long his scenes were, as he was apparently not a primary character (at least in the premise). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now sources which reckon he was filming in London at the time [1] [2] [3] Pretty Green (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Ledger died during filming the movie and was found dead in his bed, someone should change some of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.38.24 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention of his death at the end. However the film could theoretically still star him, if he had shot lots of footage, and the producers decide to keep it. Terry Gilliam has rotten luck getting films finished. It's surprising that the IMDB doesn't list Ledger's character name or role. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging rumour. I hope it turns out to be true: http://www.bigpictureradio.com/2008/01/depp-to-fill-in-for-heath-ledger-in.html 71.205.136.119 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the 'Depp' discussion section further down this page Ged UK (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming[edit]

Saying that this film is "upcoming" implies and assumes far more than "unfinished" does. Is the film finished? No, it is not; that's a verifiable fact. Is it coming up? I don't know; my crystal ball isn't working. It's bad enough that WP puts predictions like this on films where the odds are in favor of them being true. I don't think we should put such a prediction on a film whose future is this cloudy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know either way about how Ledger's death affects the film. I can't think of any in-between wording, since production has been disrupted, but we don't know if it's temporarily or permanently or some degree in between. You're right, "Upcoming" would not be quite accurate, but the problem is, we can't argue anything other than our opinions -- will it be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote or The Crow? Obviously, we should keep an eye out for reliable sources to see what kind of track this project is on. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know either way... " That's my point. The "in-between wording" you're looking for is... unfinished. It lies between one prediction (canceled) and the opposite prediction (upcoming). You seem to think I'm offering an opinion of what will happen, with that adjective, but I'm not. I'm just saying that the film is not finished... maybe it will be, maybe it won't be. Anything more hopeful and optimistic than that is NPOV, just anything that said it was probably canceled would be. And there's plenty of clarification in the article itself for those who are unclear about what unfinished means. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the word "unfinished" is that it's a permanent phrase. Look at The Man Who Killed Don Quixote -- it was never finished, and hence, it's called unfinished. Both of our preferences can be seen at opposite ends -- "will be coming out" and "won't be coming out". This is a really dynamic situation because we're caught in an activity that doesn't happen often, and there's no slap-on label for it. I'll stick with "unfinished" for now, and hopefully we can get word soon enough from filmmakers about how they'll proceed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting one word and moving some others might do the trick. How about something along the lines of

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an American fantasy-adventure film production, directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam and screenwriter Charles McKeown. In January 2008, the death of Heath Ledger, whose presence had been vital to the film's financing, disrupted production of the film. The Imaginarium has been cast with [yada-yada]..."

It tells the truth, it's non-speculative and doesn't give any misleading impressions either way. It might be a tiny bit clumsy, but it's not as if it'll be there for long; word will surely come out soon as to whether production will restart. If production is halted permanently, the article content will likely end up at the Gilliam page anyway. Steve T • C 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfinished is no more permanent than undiscovered or unread is. Today's "unread book" could easily be tomorrow's "read book". Unfinished makes no predictions; it asserts no Point Of View. Likewise, I never said that this film "won't be coming out"; I only said that there's enough chance of that to make the prediction embodied by upcoming inappropriate. I want the article to be completely noncommittal. An "unfinished" work is a work that has not been finished. And this movie has not been finished. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the definitions available. In the context of films, an "unfinished film" falls in the category of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and other films in being that production did not go all the way through. That's why I have an issue with that word choice, but like I said, I'll wait for more information about how production will continue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After my previous comment, I checked again for headlines. Production has been indefinitely suspended, so I now agree that "unfinished" fits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although production has been suspended, People is reporting that Gilliam is still working to continue the film. No decision has been made on whether to recast or scrap the film (even according to the original "indefinitely suspended" articly"--Ahecht (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images[edit]

How about using this picture of Heath Ledger on the Parnassus set or this production drawing taken from Gilliam's fanzine?. I think they could both be fair use, thoughts?.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depp[edit]

Yes, the source of all rumors is probably the Sun. But if all this reliable sources are also publishing it, why shouldn't we? The BBC is also acknowledging the existance of these "reports". So is thisisnothigham.co.uk, movies.com, cinematical.com, herladsun.com.au, sify.com (India News), etc. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary for an encyclopedic article, though? The rumor seems too newsy at this point, due to headline grabs following Ledger's death. Sooner or later, there'll be a response regarding the rumor. If the rumor is false, then it's not substantial enough to mention. If the rumor is true, then we can cite the source that official confirms the recasting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, because even if it ends up not being true, those sources mention it, and the sentence would evolve into Rumors about Depp replacing Ledger emerged shortly after his death,<REFS> but this rumors were later denied by blablablaa<REFS>.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then it's a non-issue for this production if it's false. What does it matter in the encyclopedic scheme of this unfinished production, if there was no reality to the rumor after all? Just because it's verifiable does not automatically warrant it for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A) if the film is cancelled, then this article will become an article about what was going to be, what was, and what happened afterwards, so the Depp thing would be appropriate for a post-Ledger section, just like the economical consequences that will eventually leak, as will Gilliam's future plans. I'm talking about a section like the unreferenced one over at The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.
B) if the film is not cancelled, then the sentence would be "the Sun first published Depp's involvement...on January 24...blabla".--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the numerous news reports that came out after Heath Ledger's death was announced. There were a lot of different details that were wrong and still got widely circulated. Since then, the details have been corrected, and we don't waste our time dwelling on what had been wrongly reported before. Here, we have a similar headline grabber -- from a tabloid -- about a possible role update after it came straight from the studio that production was suspended indefinitely. If there is any truth to this rumor, someone will say something, and we can report accordingly. We don't need to cover every bit of media frenzy that takes place with these unexpected circumstances. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But even the news article that says it was suspended indefinitely qualifies that by saying it "...has been suspended indefinitely ... until producers can decide whether to recast the film or scrap it entirely." In other words, no reports have said that a decision has been made to cancel the film, or that a decision has been made not to recast.--Ahecht (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we'll discuss this again tommorrow or the day after, when more sources emerge.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up: "Rumors that Johnny Depp would step in for Ledger remain just that since Depp's spokeswoman says the actor is busy prepping Michael Mann's Public Enemies and hasn't had any official talks about Parnassus." Not sure if there's much credibility here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

I've never seen a Cast section use parentheses to detail the actors and their roles. It's either been Actor as Role or written out as prose as WP:MOSFILM encourages. I don't believe that any of the film articles in the spotlight have used parentheses. Perhaps this is confused with using parentheses within the Plot section to identify the actor behind each role? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if not accurate: I'll take a look later; must log out now. --NYScholar (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [Further explanation: My original problem w/ the way the cast list has been presented has to do with the verb tenses relating to the unusual situation of this particular film's casting. The cast is still what it was (at this point in time); it's just not clear whether the film will be made and whether or not another cast member or members will be added to augment or change Heath Ledger's casting as Tony. (Perhaps the way I'm Not There uses multiple actors for characters who are incarnations of "Bob Dylan" might be informing this film's casting later as well? Who know at this point.) The main thing is that readers be able to understand the cast list. I'll review the format link given later. Thanks for clarifications here and in editing summary comments (which I just saw as well). --NYScholar (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [fixed my typo. error in above comment; sorry. Still no time to work any further on this matter. Hope this expl. suffices. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)][reply]

E.g., Why is there no "was" ("was cast") in the last two cast member's listings? The verb tenses need some kind of clearer revision; this is very awkward. All of the cast members were selected in the past; what is the distinction between "was cast" and "cast"? Even if Heath Ledger is dead and is removed from the film entirely if the film is made without his footage in it, it would still be a fact that he "had been cast" in the film--whether he appears in it or not. Please find some better (less confusing) way to present the (current) cast list. The cast has not yet changed, despite Ledger's death. --NYScholar (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't It Cool News probably not a reliable source[edit]

The "news" about the signing of Deep, Law & Farrell is sourced solely to Ain't It Cool News, a notoriously unreliable rumor and gossip website. (The other source cited, mtv.com, merely quotes AICN). It should probably go until better sources report this. Mike R (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC are reporting it too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7250685.stm no reference there to AIC. Ged UK (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Repetitions[edit]

The item of Ledger dying and being replaced by several different actors is used more or less the same way three separate times here. Can this be edited in a better way? CFLeon (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to consider that the article will continue to grow. For this film, its major coverage so far has been how Ledger's death has affected its production. There will always be a little bit of redundancy especially with cast and production being interdependent and the lead section covering the overall content. When the article is fleshed out, the redundancy will be less noticeable when we have more information about each cast member for the Cast section and more information about production design and visual effects for the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March?[edit]

The Italian version of this article gives as precise a release date for Italy (!) as March 2009, and even a translated Italian title yet: Parnassus - L'uomo che voleva ingannare il diavolo. Is the film really as close to release as Watchmen is? --77.185.11.174 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's past June 6[edit]

Guys it pass June 6.... So that's not the real theatrical release its just a announced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.140.139 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have removed it. If there is a new projected release date from a reliable source, it would be good to include. -kotra (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB now states a Dec 25 release in the US. link - - Steve3849 talk 07:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release date?[edit]

Is there a reference for the release dates? Staecker (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, which for the US is based on speculation from slashfilm. They're still in talks with Sony Picture Classics according to Vanity. Fans have been keeping track of all the release dates, but the US is not listed. Official date hasn't been announced by anyone involved with the movie. I removed the US release date for this reason. --Blackraven1425 (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An update from the Parnassus support from Aug 31st on how there's no release date officially announced for the US here --Blackraven1425 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation for the US release date (IMDB) and noted that it is unofficial. -kotra (talk)
Hmm. Sony's official website for the film says "COMING THIS CHRISTMAS" in the lower left. Would that constitute an official announcement? -kotra (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check Parnassus announcement page right here. When you choose it from the list above it states "In theaters: OPENS 12/25/09". I think that's enough for you to treat it like a official release date. --85.217.138.23 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Thanks for updating it. -kotra (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God[edit]

I have edited the following paragraph to take out the reference to god:

"In the present day, immortal 1,000-year-old Doctor Parnassus (considered by some to be a human alter ego of God)[5]"

I don't feel this is supported by the source (Aintitcool: Quint calls THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS unadulterated Terry Gilliam!), which merely states:

"Parnassus himself is played by Christopher Plummer who is just awesome in the movie. Parnassus is essentially God with a gambling problem. He can’t keep from making bets with Mr. Nick, Tom Waits’ devil in a bowler hat and that leads to the dilemma of the movie."

I believe the author is speaking metaphorically, not stating that he literally considers Parnassus an alter ego of god. Reidlophile (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would seem to be correct. Having seen this now, I realize that the claim is not substantiated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to This is it[edit]

In Italy, according to Box Office Mojo Parnassus even outdid Michael Jackson's This is it, allthroughout the run of Jackson's film it scored lower than Parnassus, and at the end of its run on November 15th Parnassus is still going strong (as in, not being dropped by theaters) and has grossed about twice as much. Might this be noticeable, regarding the fact that This is it was much more visible in the media, a much bigger production, and most people obviously thought it'd rather be the other way around? For instance, by the time Parnassus was brought up on the "expert forums" at Box Office Mojo some time this summer, it was virtually unknown, while people there at the same time were trying to predict whether This is it would gross above or below $200 million worldwide. Even now, the people at Box Office Mojo predict only "about $30-$50 million worldwide" (as in, including US domestic) for Parnassus, while the latest figures (dating November 22nd for Italy and France, November 15th for Spain, November 8th for NZ, and November 1st for the UK) for Europe alone (excluding all Australian grosses, where I heard it's going strong as well due to Ledger's nationality) add up to $17 million already. --79.193.75.125 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo figures way off[edit]

Just a note, the figures from Box Office Mojo for this film are not showing this weekends returns from Canadian theatres, where this film received a much expanded release.

Box Office Mojo shows the film opened last weekend in 10 theatres in Toronto, ON alone. I have no idea what the total number of Canadian theatres was, but a search shows at least one opening in pretty much every major Canadian city.

Canadian results usually are included in the domestic figures for films on Mojo. I confirmed that they are not going into the foreign results this time.

Anyway, someone may want to make a note in the article that not only are the Mojo figures still an estimate, but a very incomplete estimate including only the same four US theatres. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvi/Blackfriars[edit]

I removed this note:

"A reference to Roberto Calvi, who was found hanging dead in 1982 under the same bridge."

as there is no proof for the claim. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the original note went, but here's the source straight from the man Terry himself: "The beginning was really… His first appearance was really an homage to Roberto Calvi, the famous Italian Vatican banker who was found hanging under that very bridge." [4]. --79.193.62.181 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ref 181 – I’ve restored the reference with this direct quote and ref!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award(s)[edit]

I removed the phrase suggesting that the film is "being considered" for Academy Awards for picture, director, actor, etc. There was no citation, and the Oscar noms have not been announced yet (Jan 2010). Are there verifiable sources for these other awards (other than makeup)? I'm open to discussion. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

The plot should contain the plot, not a summary of the whole movie. It would really ruin the movie for those who haven't already seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milo83 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately for the young and less experienced, WP can and will include complete plot summaries for all notable books, movies, plays, operas, tv shows/episodes. if you think about it, this is required for an encyclopedia. thus, "rosebud was his sled", "tony perkins is his own mother", "the slipper fits" will by necessity ruin endings for people not familiar with the stories. if a movie or play is less notable, a stub article may have a really brief plot summary, but if the ending is highly notable, it will include that as well. the solution is to not read WP articles, particularly any section called "story", "plot", "plot summary", or "synopsis" on movies/books you havent experienced yet. i dont. this is not a movie review site, but a compendium of knowledge, including revealed secrets.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY object to the basic blow by blow account (in the most simplest, lowest common denominator terms) of what happens in this film as a presentation of the plot of this film for this article. And that it goes right through to the end. Plot accounts don't generally describe in a blow by blow fashion the last segment of a film. The current plot account operates significantly as a "spoiler" to those who haven't seen this film, and will leave cold and alienated those who have seen the film.

While the last commentator is right - this is an information source and not a movie review site - nobody suggested it was a movie review site. Because this specific information source is called an "Encyclopedia", which differs from other information sources. An encylopedia article is made up of general knowledge information so that someone who doesn't know the topic will have a good description of it. While the last commentator suggests that "revelaed secrets" is relevant to the potential "compendium of knowledge" for this film here, it seems he is getting mixed up. This is a general encyclopedia rather than a specialist encyclopedia. Encylopedia articles usually are general unless found in a specialist volume. The great thing about wikipedia is that, for those who are prepared to cope with the age old traditional context, the encyclopedia, specialist articles can be added separately to any main article. I have found that most people posting are aware that this site operates that way. If there are "revealed secrets" for this topic, they are best put in an article, perhaps entitled "secrets of [this film]", with a link put in this general encyclopedia article.

What this movie page is is an encyclopedia article. For those who did not grow up reading encyclopedias quite frequently, or haven't in some time, they really ought to go and read a number of encyclopedias for a good while. The smaller, one volume versions of 'Brittanica' can be found for around £6, for just getting to know the context. Encyclopedias are far from new, and Wikipedia is only one.

I've never seen a "plot description" given in such a way, outside of opera synopsae for people to read just before, while and just after they are experiencing the opera, which is often in a foreign language.

It does spoil the film. It does not at all tackle this film with any intelligence. This is one of the most intelligent films in terms of being thought provoking and having artistic themes that I can remember has been played to a biggish audience for a while. It takes an appreciation of this to give an account of the plot. Personally, I am not ready to do that just now. And anyway I would really appreciate if someone else could do it. If not, I will eventually, but that would be 2 months or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecochonbleu (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lecochonbleu (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Lecochonbleu in Wikipedia.[reply]

While you don't specifically indicate what you consider to be spoilers, per WP:FILMPLOT the plot summary -should- cover the main points of the film, and if that includes spoiler material, so be it. Plot summaries -should mention that Rosebud is the sled, that Vader is Luke's father, etc., because those are primary points of the films in which they occur. If you're worried about spoilers, don't read the WP articles about films you don't want to be spoiled on. This is discussed in WP:SPOILER. Doniago (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting previous commentator: "the plot summary -should- cover the main points of the film, and if that includes spoiler material, so be" it. The point of writing a plot description is to do so without giving elements of the plot away that will spoil the film. This much ought to be evident, it really should. It is a skill, and so that skill is bound up with what people actually expect in a plot description. While I do go some way down the road to agreeing that Wikipedia does allow more for commentary, and I guess is expected that way, it is still possible to sensitively write plot descriptions. OK, often Wikipedia film articles I've come across in their slight nod toward 'film appreciation' humanities examination style can be some way toward what the defending comments to blow by blow plots say, but not far. Plot description seldom is taken to mean the same thing as detailed full film synopsis. 86.12.232.33 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? May I ask where in WP policies or guidelines you're getting the idea that WP plot summaries shouldn't spoil the film? Because everything I can find seems to indicate you should expect spoilers when reading WP plot summaries. Doniago (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLOT can describe how everything happened: Consider the Plot section as a one-time chance to tell the story: to the people who cannot see the film (blind?) or who fell asleep and always wondered how it ended. What did Hamlet do in the last 17 minutes? Back in 2006, film (or book) articles had "***spoiler***" tags which could be placed in plot, or character, sections to warn when key events were about to be revealed within the "begin-end spoiler" sections. However, those tags were considered, by many, as excessive warnings; so today, a plot can begin with a total-spoiler phrase such as, "The man moved his family to South America, hoping for a better life, and over the long journey, he was shocked as everyone died." For that reason, people consider the entire "Plot" section as a giant spoiler. Don't read any Plot if you want to avoid secrets. Also, many people try to avoid revealing the plot events in character descriptions, such as: "Emma-Rose was the girlfriend he finally married but she dies too" - PLEASE DON'T write that in a list of characters. Otherwise, remember: the plot is a one-time chance to tell people the story, to those who can't see the film. Try to describe the heart of the story: if worried about spoilers, then make the plot section flow as a very short story, ending at the end. In this article, the plot has revealed the specific fate of each character, so readers can learn how it ended. -Wikid77 08:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Percy is not a dwarf[edit]

I have removed the passage mentioning Percy as a dwarf, because I can't find any reference supporting that theory. The character himself talks about dwarves using the third person. -- Marcus1979 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percy is somewhat mystical as along with Dr. Parnassus, he did not age though the centuries. He mentions that without himself the good doctor would simply hire a dwarf, which indites they would resemble him in rough appearance only. Regardless if Percy is a dwarf, he does not consider himself one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.37.155 (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think he refers to himself as a midget, not a dwarf. Several times. Technically different. 2601:602:880:A3C0:D031:64ED:ECFD:37FA (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Parnassus : What would I do without you?
Percy : Get a midget.
I read that as Percy saying he's not a midget. DonIago (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post Credits[edit]

After the end credits, Tony's ringtone is heard playing many times. This seems to indicate he might still be alive, or at the very least someone is trying to contact him. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Many people miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.37.155 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's there! Is that ringtone original or taken from an excisting phone company? I want it for my ringtone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.207.157 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for one actor?[edit]

I'd like to hear from other editors on whether it's appropriate to include a navbox for one actress who has a minor role in the film. I'm concerned that this might constitute undue weight, and it doesn't seem to improve the quality of the article in my opinion. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not appropriate per MOS:FILM#Navigation: "WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role prominence." I've removed the template from here and the other film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About what I figured. Thanks for the MOS link! Doniago (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Posthumous film"[edit]

Expanded plot and condensed minor words[edit]

19-April-2011: I expanded the plot with some brief description of the "pastel-colored dream-world of giant high-heel shoes, bejeweled eggs and floating lily pads". If people cannot see the film, they need some of these details to understand events inside the mirror. Meanwhile, per WP:FILMPLOT, I condensed 125 simple words by shortening prepositional phrases, or leaving out obvious repetition of where people were located. More could be done; however, I think this film is a case where the plot should be more than 800 words. This film seems like a highly complex story which requires a long plot to sort through the events. There are 6 main characters, and 9 others to enter the Imaginarium, which itself takes a while to describe. More obvious phrases could be shortened, but I would add more about illogical events inside the mirror and the charity for multi-cultural children, as for what type of charity. Perhaps try to keep the Plot section within 1,000 words, which I left as 795 words. -Wikid77 08:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My -personal- guideline (i.e., when I'll get actively involved) is 1K. If we're really only 95 words over I'd wonder whether it would be possible to trim further, but I'm not going to make an issue of it. That's not a comment on whether other editors might be correct to do so. Doniago (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faust[edit]

I saw the film on TV yesterday, and I was sure the plot was somehow familiar, but couldn't really put my thumb on it. This wikipedia page did not mention any tale that this story was based on, or similar to. Navigating through the links I finally stumbled upon it: Dr Faust! 'A magical re-telling of the Faust story' says the 'Heath Ledger' page. This was exactly the info I was looking for in the first place, so I added it to the header of this page. Mljmeerman (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be called "magical" in the lead, that's clearly non-neutral language being used by one or more reviewers.
The comparison to Faust is valid, but that shouldn't be mentioned in the lead unless individuals involved with the film have made the comparison. Additionally the lead should summarize material that's discussed in the body of the article, so if Faust isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article it shouldn't be mentioned there either.
It sounds like all we really have is reviewers calling it "a magical re-telling...". Appropriate for Reception, not the lead. Doniago (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago, Could you put it at the correct place? I am not an editor, I was just looking for information that imho should have been there but wasn't. That is why I added it, after I finally found it in another page. Sorry to have put it in the wrong place. I don't know where it should go if not the header. Thanks, mljmeerman 95.149.147.18 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?[edit]

@151.188.25.130: Can you please explain the concerns you have that led you to tag this article? DonIago (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Imaginarium_of_Doctor_Parnassus&oldid=1202920298"