Jump to content

Talk:The Wiz (film)/Archive 1

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

DYK

Hallelujah! This is a very good article on a very good film. My only question: How the hell was there no article about The Wiz before? -- Kicking222 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The film info was lumped in with the info on the original Broadway musical. --FuriousFreddy 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Great source for this article

  • Silvester, Christopher (2002). The Grove Book of Hollywood. Grove Press. pp. Pages 555-560. ISBN ISBN 0802138780. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • I will expand the article with this source later. How did this make WP:DYK with no sources cited? Cirt 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced, from the article, moved here

Until we find sources for each of these unsourced statements, I have removed all this from the article and put it here as a record. Cirt 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

Of course, if any sources can be provided to back this stuff up with some context, it could be added back into the article at some point. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

Free-use images removed?

  • I think the (3) free-use images in the article are tasteful, and relevant. Can someone please explain to me why they were removed without discussion? Cirt) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC).
    • That's just it, however: the pictures are not relevant to this article. They have nothing to do specifically with The Wiz, and weren't taken anywhere near when the film was made. They're just arbitrary images of three people related with the film. Just because they're free use doesn't mean they have to be used.

Examine the featured and good articles on other films, and note what kinds and types of pictures they use. Images of cast/crew are referenced from screenshots, on the set pictures, or official studio publicity related with the film.

With a properly written fair use rationale, a screenshot from or two the film itself would make far more sense and be relevant to the article, since relevant free-use images would be hard, if not impossible, to find.

Also, an article on a musical film doesn't usually include a link to the musical theatre portal, since it's not a work of musical theatre (based upon, yes, but films based on books aren't linked to the literature/books/etc. portal either). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I'll remove the portal link. However, I think on Wikipedia it is always preferred to use free-use images over fair use rationale images. I sense the project is moving away from fair-use rationale images in general in some respect. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
I agree the images of Ross, Jones, and Jackson are irrelevant to this article, as none of them relate directly to their participation in the film, and therefore should be removed. Once they are, I'm ready to deem the article worthy of "good article" status. MovieMadness (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 Done - I removed the three free-use images. I can see when the majority is in the other direction, and I won't push this further. Thanks for commenting. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

1999 DVD release

Universal Studios Home Entertainment issued The Wiz on DVD in non-anamorphic widescreen in 1999, updating this release for the film's thirtieth anniversary in 2008 with anamorphic widescreen and a new 5.1 sound mix.

This can't simply be sourced by looking at the DVD - it needs a secondary source, or else it is a violation of WP:OR, not to mention it's unsourced as it stands. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A blog post and IMBD? Not the best of cites for this info... Cirt (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They're just fine. DVD info on IMDb is not edited by users, but directly by the IMDb staff. And the blog contains an article from a professional website on the movie. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey now, no need to use language like that. In fact, your entire second sentence in this last comment of yours is really not needed at all, and not conducive to a civil discussion. Would appreciate it if you redacted it. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sentence removed, but fix the article yourself if you're going to undermine my contributions. I don't have the patience to deal with people critiquing where I get references for release dates of a DVD from. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I did. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GAR

This article has had a Good article reassessment. The result of the reassessment was WP:GA status kept. For more info please see Talk:The Wiz (film)/GA2. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kalidah

Left a note for Killb94 (talk · contribs) about this. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalidah, the term is non-notable and should not be added to the plot summary. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] = added by Killb94 (talk · contribs). Added by different IPs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Please pardon my ignorance here. I only just rented the videotape of this movie. I know almost nothing about African American music, so I have some musical questions.

What is the style of this music called? To me it sounds like some of the songs are sung with a scale that might be different from the well-tempered scale. Is that so? Are there quarter tones for instance? Is that common for African American music? Or was this video so old that the music had become distorted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs)

Not sure, perhaps that info would be on the soundtrack. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many different styles of music in the soundtrack. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories and info box

I took off the categories about "movies made for children" and "blaxplotation" and the info box for "Est in popular culture." Est was not mentioned in the movie, although as the article says it seems to have had some influence on its creators. The movie also was not a children's movie or a blaxplotation movie. Of course these things don't really do any harm but why put stuff on an article that doesn't really fit? Should we tag all of Tom Cruise's movies with "Scientology in popular culture"? Or Steven Spielberg's with "Judaism in popular culture"? Or for that matter Walt Disney's and Alfred Hitchcock's with "Catholicism in popular culture"? Wolfview (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based upon the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, that would be a violation of WP:NOR. We use WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The article does not say that the movie was made for children or was blaxplotation. I will take the categories off again. It would be OR to leave them on, besides being against common sense. Wolfview (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
See secondary sources in the article, and those that were already in the WP:LEAD as well prior to this discussion. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Affter reviewing the article on the topic, I'd say that it might count as blaxplotation, but would be a borderline case. I honestly don't see how anyone could claim its intended audience was children. Wolfview (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is one of the intended audiences, for sure. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure they wouldn't turn anyone away. :-) Wolfview (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Blaxplotation movies were typically low budget b movies such as super fly or those type of movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.214.147 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

They didn't spend their money on cameras. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Could this article include some of the racial history and symbolism in the film? I am thinking specifically of the racial stereotypes represented in the costumes of the winkies, and how shedding these stereotypes to reveal "humans underneath" is a type of emancipation. There is some discussion of this on the wikipage for the broadway production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaryHollace (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

profit/loss

This article disagrees with itself. "The Wiz proved to be a commercial flop, as the $24 million production only earned $13.6 million at the box office.[1][2][6] Though prerelease TV broadcast rights had been sold to CBS for over $10 million, in the end, the film produced a net loss of $10.4 million for Motown and Universal.[2][6]"

$13.6m box office + $10m broadcast rights = $23.6m against $24m production is not a $10.4m loss.

Does anyone have easy access to the sources cited to clarify what is going on here? It's fairly obvious the loss figure ignores the broadcast rights, but I'm not going to "correct" text based on a guess. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Should we include the film's score and critics consensus in this article? I'm surprised that neither of them are nowhere to be seen. And1987 (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Some editors don't like to include Rotten Tomatoes scores for old films. On some films, I agree that it's either redundant (we already have better sources, like film criticism books) or confusing (the rating is from a haphazard collection of reviews from the 1970s, retrospective reviews from the 2000s, and of a remastered re-release from 2010s). But, most of the time, I think it's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Blaxploitation

The film is a reimagining of The Wizard of Oz, except with an all African-American cast. Would this fit the title? KaleeBR (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wiz_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1174704920"