The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article was promoted to A-class, with three supports and no opposes. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropic Thunder

[edit]

I have worked on improving this article a few months after it was first created. I have scoured the Internet looking for sources, and after attaining GA status, I have also just recently added to the article information from the special features of the recent DVD release. The article is comprehensive in covering the film and is well-sourced throughout. I plan to take it to FA at some point, and would appreciate any feedback here in improving the article further. Thanks for looking. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik
No big deal on the delay. I can devote some more time to the article this weekend, after I finish my major test tomorrow. I was actually waiting for an article concerning sales, so thanks for finding one I could use. Please take your time. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually not added bold font to the cast section this time to a film article I had worked on, but somebody actually did within the last week or so. Anyway, I removed it and also converted the cameos to prose. I believe I added the NBSPs everywhere that needed them, but let me know if I missed any. I don't have access to the DVD right now (I knew I should have done it earlier when I rented it), though I will probably be buying/receiving it on Blu-ray within the next month. Thanks for the suggestions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts...

I'm not really familiar with the director's cuts for those films. I believe this one was significantly different compared to the theatrical version, including adding a large deleted scene and changing/adding numerous lines throughout the film. I guess I don't see any harm in mentioning the length of the director's cut, but if you think it still should be removed, let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the source you provided on the talk page to source this.  Done
Let me know if the shuffle looks better or not. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it a bit. I couldn't find anything about specific pressure though. Take a look and see if I should reword if further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the single reason for choosing the island, but in the sources I read, it was by living there, that he was familiar with the area and had decided that he wanted to film there. But again, other locations were considered as well, so if you think I should remove it I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved some of the sentences around, how does it look now? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have seen it somewhere or I may have added it myself. I don't know if that qualifies as OR or not, but if you think so, I can remove it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are two separate things, and I just added both in one sentence instead of having two brief individual sentences. Do you think it should be deleted altogether, or should either one of the elements be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I added this but had left it there. But after reading it now when you pointed it out, it does look like it should be removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before watching this, I was hoping that it would be a great source for adding details about the production of the film. However, it was just a mockumentary, and didn't have any reliable content to add to the article. I included it in the section since it appeared to be a significant marketing segment for the film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add sources for the first sentence since it is described in more detail in the controversy section. The other sites described are illustrated in the external links section. I removed the "see below" and added a wikilink instead within the sentence. If you still think it is too self-referential, I can remove it completely. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was not aware of this. I made the change as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones I found were this and this, but I don't know if that would be reliable/respectable enough to include in the external links? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to strike out any points that you address. I still need to prowl for print sources to see if anything else needs inclusion, but nice job so far! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to questions above

I'm not really familiar with the director's cuts for those films. I believe this one was significantly different compared to the theatrical version, including adding a large deleted scene and changing/adding numerous lines throughout the film. I guess I don't see any harm in mentioning the length of the director's cut, but if you think it still should be removed, let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not the single reason for choosing the island, but in the sources I read, it was by living there, that he was familiar with the area and had decided that he wanted to film there. But again, other locations were considered as well, so if you think I should remove it I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved some of the sentences around, how does it look now? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Before watching this, I was hoping that it would be a great source for adding details about the production of the film. However, it was just a mockumentary, and didn't have any reliable content to add to the article. I included it in the section since it appeared to be a significant marketing segment for the film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add sources for the first sentence since it is described in more detail in the controversy section. The other sites described are illustrated in the external links section. I removed the "see below" and added a wikilink instead within the sentence. If you still think it is too self-referential, I can remove it completely. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I found were this and this, but I don't know if that would be reliable/respectable enough to include in the external links? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Steve
Thanks for taking a look. I reworded the RT rating and it's similar to the wording of Hancock now. I left the Em dashes as they were since that was how they were written in the sources. If someone raises issue at FAC, I'll deal with it then. I've been thinking about expanding the review section for awhile, and with your little nudge, I'll get to doing it later today. I'll let you know when I'm done so that you can take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded on the reception section a bit, let me know what you think. I'll probably still tinker with it some more over the next few days as I keep looking over various reviews. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I'll definitely be nipping back over here tomorrow for another glance at the article. Steve T • C 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the reception section is looking a lot beefier. I was going to mention that the critics' comments on the controversy over the "Simple Jack" stuff maybe slants too far to those that are rebutting the criticisms; the paragraph contains mostly positive remarks, leaping straight into the Washington Times' "arguing against the opposition". But then, there is an entire stand-alone section detailing the concerns, so while it's probably not necessary to balance out equally the positive comments with more negative ones, it might be a good idea to start the paragraph (after the introductory sentence) with one quote from a film critic who did find it offensive (if one exists). Steve T • C 08:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all of the "rotten" review at RT and nobody spoke out against SJ (except for one reviewer who called the joke old). I also did a Google search, and the only negative thoughts on it came from those who don't review films. The last review in that paragraph is kind of negative, so maybe I should start with that? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Girolamo Savonarola

  • Is Sandusky actually identified as a character actor? Supporting actor might be more appropriate - character actors are usually supporting actors, while supporting actors are not necessarily character actors.
Wow, that was like reading a riddle! Changed to supporting actor. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Speedman believe that Cockburn is dead but try to convince the actors otherwise, or does he truly believe that Cockburn is still alive in contradiction to everyone?
He believes that he is alive, and does his best to convince the other actors. Lazarus was the only one who truly still believes that Cockburn is dead. Do you think it needs to be reworded? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - otherwise it looks like he's trying to fool them into thinking he's alive when Speedman is aware that he isn't. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedman isn't aware that Cockburn is dead. I think his character is too stupid to recognize it/doesn't want to recognize it. The other actors do think he is dead, but Speedman, believing he knows more about action films, does his best to convince him that Cockburn faked his death. He is able to convince all of the actors for the most part, especially after the ambush, but not Lazarus. I reworded it a bit more. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly improved, but now all four of them suddenly appear to want to be rescued. That wouldn't make sense if the other three still believed Cockburn was alive - presumably they've been convinced otherwise? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is never stated if the other three actors believe that Cockburn is dead or alive again. They appear to just be along for the journey and will do whatever Speedman or Lazarus tells them to do. When they get tired and discover they are heading in the wrong direction they start to believe Lazarus and head off to be resuced and not continue making the movie. I did reword --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unbeknownst to the actors" - perhaps the actors and the production would be better; presumably no one meant to drop them in the middle of a drug war zone.
Changed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they split off from him, with Portnoy and Chino and leave Speedman" - reads awkward, feels like the two split off, then get Portnoy and Chino, then leave again.
I reworded it a bit, let me know if it still doesn't read that well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but a new question - do the other four still believe that they're making the movie, or are they just trying to get picked up? In other words, do they think that they are correctly following the shot list or have they abandoned the idea? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it to say that the four actors are hoping to be rescued to deter any belief that they still want to film the movie. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slowly going insane" - is this actually going insane or just getting way too into a method-ish headspace? Is this distinct from his later Stockholm syndrome?
I see what you're saying. I can't think of a better way of rewording it, do you have any suggestions? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the actors open fire on the gang" - aren't they firing blanks?
I reworded it a bit more into the next sentence. Let me know how it sounds. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gang quickly rejoins, crossing a bridge that Underwood had rigged to detonate" - who rejoins who? Are Underwood and Tayback a part of the gang? Did Underwood rig the bridge ahead of time, or is he rigging it around that time? (ie, has any significant amount of time passed between arriving at the bridge and rigging it)
Reworded, please take a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't read like they reunited with Underwood and Tayback - just looks like they grabbed their ride. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do they cross the bridge and then rejoin, or vice versa? I seem to remember it being the other way around, but I could be mistaken. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They rejoin with Tayback and meet with Underwood once they've crossed the bridge. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Jive be capitalized?
Lower-cased. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely a source can be found to compare the Jack Black character to Eddie Murphy's Klumps films?
I previously found a source for it and it's mentioned in the faux trailers section. Do you think it should be mentioned in the cast as well? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a better way of getting the contextual information out of the plot section. See further comments about the section move below. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tropic Thunder, the novel" - while it is revealed to be false, it strictly speaking isn't presented as a novel, nor is this known to most of the world within the film. Maybe "Tropic Thunder, a memoir of his war experiences". The rest of the character description should make things clear enough - otherwise, calling it a novel may be confusing - why does it matter that he's not a vet and has hands, then? The parenthetical could probably also be split similarly to start the description of him as handless.
I'm not sure if I interpreted your instructions clearly, so please take a look at his now reworded description. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "foul-mouthed executive" - foul-mouthed studio executive
Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The explosives expert behind the film" - he can't behind the film, he's just a technician. "The film's explosives expert", maybe?
Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is heartbroken" - heartbroken, not disillusioned?
Changed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC, I believe that the MOS would be to write Downey rather than Downey Jr, unless there is a need to distinguish between the father and son. Not 100% on that, but it certainly looks and reads clunky.
I posted a question at Wikiproject Bio, will respond once I get a reply. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cf Martin Luther King Jr, who is usually referred to as King if only called by his last name. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In his article, it was also reduced to Downey. I removed all of the occurrences. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be one left towards the beginning. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured I would leave one for one last instance of clarification, but have decided against it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not certain if Cruise requires a section below Casting, but if so, then I'd put all of the Cruise info from the prior paragraph into that section as well - a section on Cruise shouldn't split the content. That or a retitle to Cruise controversy or something more specific. But again, I'm not certain this content can't simply be integrated into the existing structure in place or elsewhere in Production.
Removed the subheading. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of that, Casting probably is better placed after the Script section, if Production is going to include development and pre-production too.
Moved the section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MTV News reported that" - I'm not certain that the fact that MTV reported it is important, nor is a direct quote necessarily needed. A summary with the reference should be enough.
Removed the quote, and summarized. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years after film titles are distracting and not necessary, since the links to their articles provide that information. Unless the year is directly related to the text itself, in which case it should be integrated into the prose instead of being a parenthetical. (It's also being applied inconsistently anyway.)
Removed all cases. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film satirizes other Vietnam War films including Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, and The Deer Hunter, among others." - Does it really satirize each of these films? The only one I remember specifically being parodied is Platoon (Defoe's death); otherwise, it seems like a parody of the Vietnam film genre on the whole. The reference is not really strong (one local newspaper), and whatever they said, I can't find it, since it's gone 404 in the meantime.
The obvious film that is spoofed was Platoon. I remember the source mentioning all of the films, and even after doing a Google search and attempting to resurrect the link with the Internet Archive, I can't pull it up. I replaced it with another source as well as the production notes that talk about it. Instead of listing all of the films, should I just say the Vietnam War film genre? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you shouldn't have too hard of a time finding a ref for Platoon, but if you don't have them for the others, I think you have to generalize the rest. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kept the three that are in the source and reworded the sentence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initially suggested for filming" - suggested for the main unit/production base, something of that ilk. This should be clarified, since the article does go on to state that some of the film was shot in SoCal.
I think I reworded it okay, but please take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per next reply. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kauai sentences perhaps should come after its mentioned that they chose it - while this isn't strict chronology, it is better flow. Similarly, the additional filming should probably come after Hawaii has been exhausted. It interrupts otherwise, and looks out of place if it occurs too early without any additional context.
Take another look at this since I moved some sentences and wording around. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...not certain. Let me mull it over. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a moving storyboard? Do you mean an animatic?
Looking at the definition it looks like that is what it is. In the featurette it showed a computer-generated storyboard that was pretty intricate and close to the actual look of the film. I added a wikilink. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just call it an animatic, then. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated a few things from the sources. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Faux trailers...Can this be integrated into the plot and production sections? Don't know what's the best approach to this, but it sticks out like a sore thumb and it's placement is problematic. Also the title is confusing - it could imply discussion of fake TT trailers.
I moved this before the plot section. I initially had it there before, but other editors kept moving it down. Let me know if you think it should be moved to an alternate area. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be divided in three parts - the basic plot description should go into the Plot instead of meriting its own section within that, which seems somewhat muddled. I'm not certain how detailed it needs to be one way or the other, though. The real-world context of what is being parodied probably is best placed in the cast/characters sections, and the filming details can be incorporated into the production section, probably near the Tom Cruise section, since it involves cameos. Thoughts?
I kept the basic info about the trailers at the beginning of the plot. I moved the information about the spoofs to the cast/characters section and the Maguire cameo in the paragraph talking about the other cameos. Let me know if it needs to be adjusted further.
  • "funded by themselves to charity" - huh?
Funded by themselves for charity. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean, though? That they paid for the production costs because American Idol was too cheap? Or did it for a charity? If so, how did a TV appearance raise money? I'm still confused. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought we were just talking about grammar. I believe the event was a special charity event where various singers were performing for a telethon type of event to raise money for a charity. I don't think that part is that notable to mention, so I just removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Our movie's poster doesn't really fit in" - again, lost me. The context for this is unclear. What does a poster have to do with screening a film in a festival?
I just removed the quote altogether. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faux websites - No references for the first paragraph.
I added a source about pulling the site. I have yet to find a reliable site for sourcing the faux websites. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be better, but I'm not as concerned anymore. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The faux documentary included a movie poster and an official website prior to Tropic Thunder's release" - included them in the documentary? I don't understand.
Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The energy drink was the first product to be released concurrently with a film's release" - I'm pretty sure that the Wonka bars done for the recent film would also qualify. I know that's not a source, but more research might be in order.
There isn't too much on the topic of Booty Sweat. I know The Simpsons Movie marketed some of their fictional products, but that was prior to the film's release. For the Wonka Bars, those were created before/after the original film. In the sources I've seen the products came out prior to the film's release or, more often, afterwards. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get this distinction - usually concurrent is a more or less type of thing, what are you meaning? What you seem to be claiming is that the fact that this came out exactly on the day of release is somehow notable. I don't really see what it matters if product tie-ins come out a few weeks ahead of or shortly after the release - these are generally regarded as concurrently released items in such occurrences. In any case, are we sure that this isn't just the beverage manufacturer repackaging something already being made, or just creating a limited edition variety under the fictional name for tie-in purposes? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are not that many sources that can reliably defend the claim, I just removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "speculated that the film would outperform The Dark Knight" - I'm assuming this is regarding the weekend gross for it's opening weekend? If so, needs clarification.
I split up the sentences to better clarify the opening weekend gross. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film grossed over $100 million domestically, becoming the first film Stiller directed to do so.[97] Tropic Thunder also became Stiller's seventh, Black's fourth, and Downey, Jr.'s third film to gross more than $100 million domestically in their careers as lead actors." - Seems a bit trivial box office porn, IMHO. If it's Stiller's most successful film that he directed, just say so. I think the "actor's Xth film" is wholly arbitrary - how is it relevant or important, and why exactly is $100m a notable benchmark of all the ones to choose?
It sounded good at the time, but I see what you mean. Although box office porn is my favorite, I've removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still wondering about the Stiller/$100m mark. Especially since as an actor he's done it several times before, and he is acting in this, it's not clear that this is a result of him directing this film. Simply noting that it has become his most successful film as a director (maybe with a comparison to what it surpassed) seems more germane and elegant. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still clunky listing all of his prior films. I was thinking more along the lines of "besting Such and Such's gross of $lots to become his most successful film" or something similar. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better or still need to be reworded? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty - hope you don't mind. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golden Trailer Awards is mentioned twice - can this be consolidated?
Mentioned only in the promotion section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination categories should be capitalized
Fixed all of these. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. I had quickly typed it without realizing it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "20th for most sales in 2008" - 20th for DVD sales reads better and is grammatically correct. (Unless you're implying that this was the most common 20th item purchased. I suppose some people could be that compulsive, heh.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a lot of additional revenue if left as it was! Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the 20th" needs to drop "the". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This conflicts with Erik's suggestion above, and I think it should be fine as is (don't worry, I'm not picking sides!). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there's not too much else post-wise being discussed, I'm fine with that. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, had typed it too fast and wasn't paying attention. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It's Chinese. You wouldn’t call them Chineses." I just switched them to "gang" to be safe. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced, but meh... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He still did write the book, even if wasn't true. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worded that poorly - I meant that he claimed that he wrote the book as a tribute - given the circumstances he finds himself in when he claims that, it might be an excuse. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got ya, I reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per this interview Downey claims he didn't base it off any one person. However, should I readd it if some reviewers thought he was portraying Crowe? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned additional details in the casting section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figure the plot would get too long explaining it, so I just removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was snuck in, I removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, despite these mostly minor issues, the article is in excellent shape. If I've made any comments redundant or contrary to other editors', I apologize, but I'm pulling a TLDR. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they look like fun! That's great that you found those sources, I'm surprised I missed them. I'll look at addressing these tomorrow as I need to get some sleep. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I still hope that the unstruck points get addressed, but I'm satisfied enough to believe that this is A-class material. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm satisfied with the A-Class assessment, though another copy edit would probably be required before it goes to FAC (e.g. the lead has a couple of overlong sentences that could be split). There's also scope for additional trims to the "Plot" section to try to bring it closer to 700 words. But I've no beef with the content. Good work. I'll comment on the inclusion of information on the faux trailers on the article's talk page itself. I don't think a simple content discussion like this could be classed as article instability, and does not present a bar to its promotion. Steve T • C 13:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued support with changes made since I last weighed in. Two points, though... like Steve noted, the "Plot" section could be trimmed; its current word count is 858 words. Secondly, boldface was restored to the "Cast" section, and I think that the bulleted items are too close together to really warrant this kind of highlighting. Other than that, though, you're golden. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More