Talk:Precious (film)/Archive 1

Title of article[edit]

There is an issue because there is another current film with the same name, Push (2009 film). The film which the present article is about is getting its apparent first screening in January 2009, but IMDB lists it as Push (2008/I). The confusion between the films has already been noted in the media: [1]. It looks like the approach that the Sundance festival is taking is to refer to it as Push: Based on the novel by Sapphire:[2]. However, I have found no other source referring to the film in that way, and it seems that the official title is still Push, so I opted to use a similar paranthetical phrase, with the additional distinguishing word "film."--Larrybob (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. Aervanath (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting for consensus to move this film article to Push (2009 drama film). There is another 2009 titled Push, and it is at Push (2009 sci-fi film). While this particular film's full title can be written as Push: Based on a Novel by Sapphire, WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name. The naming conventions for films defers to these more general naming conventions. If one Googles Push and Sundance, Push is the common name used. In the article itself, the full title can be written out in the lead section and in the infobox. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I oppose this move, but I'll reserve judgement pending further discussion. It's certainly a rare case where two films from the same year and the same country share the same title! :) But with respect to the naming conventions, if Push: Based on a Novel by Sapphire is an acceptable title and it avoids an otherwise awkward disambiguaton, then would it not be fair to invoke WP:IAR? PC78 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Googling around, it looks like Based on a Novel by Sapphire is the filmmakers' own attempt to differentiate their film from the sci-fi film in the same year. They don't want their film to be confused with that potential turd! :) My opinion aside, other from the filmmakers' differentiation, Push is the common name used for either film. We have it written in WP:NCF to disambiguate by year and adjective, so it is not a spur-of-the-moment fix. I don't really see it as awkward; if anything, "Based on a Novel by Sapphire" is not significant enough to warrant attachment to Push in the article title. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I created the article, the only site using the subtitle was the Sundance site, but since then it seems the media has picked up on it, including Variety and Holywood Reporter. It's starting to sound official. The article has already been moved several times - let's just wait a minute and see what sticks. --Larrybob (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, there are two 1915 films called Carmen and they are disambig'd by the director (see here and here). I took the naming convention when creating these articles from the French wiki that had done the same disambig. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea (though it wouldn't work for a film with multiple directors). Whatever we decide here, perhaps we could agree on a convention for this sort of thing in the future? PC78 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy as it exists is linked to in the above discussion: WP:NCF --Larrybob (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the naming convention, it's just that they seem a little bit fuzzy when you get to this level of diambiguation. :) PC78 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--> Page should be moved to "Push (2009 drama film)", unless it can be shown that the current title ("Based in a Novel...") is the official title of the movie. Press sources, as well as IMDB, refer to it as Push. Orane (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it listed with the subtitle in an article. Nvrmind. Orane (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation[edit]

It seems that every day or so a disambiguation section is added or removed. The argument against having it is encapulated in the policy WP:NAMB (Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous). Would someone really end up at this article looking for the other film? Someone looking for this film might wind up at the other page, because it has an ambiguous name, but this one is pretty unambiguous.--Larrybob (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another name, Precious[edit]

There has been some recent editing regarding Tyler Perry's report of the name change of the film to Precious. The article as it stands at the moment has something in bold which is not the new subtitle of the film, even according to the reports. The sources so far are a TV show, the View and a blog (although one published by AOL): [3]. I think before we move the article again we should wait for more confirmation, like a Variety article or something.--Larrybob (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful about original research. WP:OR - that includes going out to see Tyler Perry's film to see if the trailer for Precious is being shown with it.--Larrybob (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations page?[edit]

It may be necessary to make a 'List of Precious awards and nominations' page? The list/table is getting pretty long on the main page. --Mike Allen 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of sorts[edit]

It's looking pretty good now, and I know it's awaiting GA review, so I'll just add some things that occurred to me as I read through. Just my POV, so feel free to disregard as appropriate.

Lead[edit]

There's no mention of genre in the lead - could be useful.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The novel is called Push: A Novel here whereas it's just Push in the article for the novel

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The film's cast, most of whom are women" - is it necessary to say that they're mostly women?

Done I reworded the sentence to: "The film's mainly female cast, features" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"premiered to praise" - sounds a little awkward, maybe it's the alliteration. Could be "premiered to acclaim" maybe - although later on the reception is described as "mostly positive", so perhaps a little inconsistent.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The film's title was changed from Push ...." - this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article

Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of focus on box office numbers in the lead, which is maybe a bit too much info considering it's expanded on later on

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"various awards" sounds a little vague

Done re-worded to "multiple awards" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that last sentence, I'm not sure the word "notably" is necessary

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't yet adequately summarise the whole article

Plot[edit]

Precious lives "with her dysfunctional family" - this is slightly misleading as she only lives with her mother, her father, grandmother and daughter are elsewhere.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"constant... abuse from her mother" - doesn't seem quite the right word, as it's not literally constant. Maybe "continued" or something? "Long term"?

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph it says Precious is impregnated twice, then in the 2nd paragraph it says "After Precious becomes pregnant for the second time,". This does make sense, but just struck me as slightly confusing. It might just be me, but I would reword it slightly, maybe something like "Following the discovery of Precious' 2nd pregnancy..."

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to name the character of the principal or the actress that plays here - she's not a major character and not mentioned again in the plot.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Precious fights to find her way..." ok, this may be nitpicking, but it doesn't seem to me that she was really "fighting" as such until the point where she goes to the alternative school. I would put it more simpler, like "Precious finds a way out of her traumatic daily existence by..."

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In her past while she is being raped" - sounds slightly awkward - maybe "in her past" is not necessary

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"photo albums" -> "photograph albums" - more formal

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In her mind there is another world, one in which, unlike her real one, she is loved and appreciated." - "unlike her real one" - unnecessary?

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"when Precious blurts out..." - unnecessary? Could just be eg. "Ms Weiss, who learns about incest in the household"

I re-worded it to "Miss Weiss (Mariah Carey), who learns about incest in the household when Precious unintentionally implies it to her." Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There she meets John McFadden" - where? (I know where, but it's not obvious)

Done re-worded to "While at the hospital, she meets John McFadden" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's no need to specify that McFadden is a male nurse - that's obvious. However, I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention him at all since nothing more is said about him. Kravitz is discussed later on.

I removed "male" from "male nurse", but I think he should be mentioned, because while he isn't a major character in general or to the film after the hospital, the conversation and meeting is somewhat notable. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Desperate to get out of the cold, she breaks into her classroom and is found there in the morning by Miss Rain." - this whole sentence is probably not necessary. I just think in general the pot could be trimmed of these details which aren't completely necessary to understand what's going on. Best to be as concise as possible.

I re-worded the sentence to "Precious fights back long enough to get her son and flees her home, for what would be permanent. Shortly after leaving the house, in an attempt to get out of the cold outside, Precious breaks into her school classroom and is found there in the morning by Miss Rain. " Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Precious asking Ms Weiss what colour she is really isn't pertinent to the plot. I kind of thought they'd thrown that in there because of the way people often don't know what race Mariah Carey is. I have no idea if that's mentioned in any source, but if it is, it should be discussed elsewhere because it really has no bearing on the story. That whole scene doesn't need documenting, just that Precious steals her file during one of their sessions.

I feel that part of the scene should be mentioned (mainly when Precious steals the file because it has a positive effect on her) so I re-worded it to "Feeling dejected, Precious meets Miss Weiss at her office, after a short conversation when Miss Weiss leaves the room, Precious steals her case file. Precious recounts the details of the file to her fellow students and has a new lease on life." Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to put the names of the actors in this section since it's followed by a cast list. One or the other should suffice.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

In the first sentence, close repetition of "casting" sounds awkward, and then also the close repetition of "September 2007"

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section mentions physical and verbal abuse, but she was also sexually abused, including by the mother

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really necessary to explain the character of Precious as that's been done in the plot summary

While I do agree that there shouldn't be to much of an explanation of the lead character(s) because notable information is mentioned in the plot, I do think that there should be some information/an overview of the character(s) in the cast section. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sidibe was awarded the role" - sounds like it's a prize, maybe "was given the role"

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time of casting, Sidibe was an untrained actress, with no acting experience, At the time of Sidibe's casting, she had already read the novel Push a few years prior to her casting when her mother..." - there's repetition here & it doesn't flow.

Done I re-worded the sentence to "At the time of casting, Sidibe had no acting experience;[3] though she was familiar with her character having had previous read the novel Push a few years prior when" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Carey quote: "referred to a scene involving her character as "the answer."" - it's a little vague - I don't really know what she means

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a citation for Sapphire's cameo

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"sadistic" is maybe not as neutral as it could be.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When some actors are mentioned that haven't been mentioned yet, they need full names & wikilinks so the reader doesn't have to look up to the cast list to see who "Sage" is.

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact about Hightower's first role needs a citation. The footnote may be redundant.

Done

"Andujar stated that while auditioning for her character, Daniels had been so impressed..." - is this grammatically correct? It implies that Daniels is auditioning, not Andujar.

Done re-worded to "During Andujar's audition, Daniels had been so impressed that he interrupted her during her dialogue" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

The picture of the filming location - the description is a little long-winded

Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange to have the first sentence as "The film is directed by Lee Daniels..." since he's already discussed in the casting section. Isn't casting also part of prouction? Maybe it should be a sub-section of the production section
That first sentence seems too long

Done re-worded and separated it into two sentences: "The film is directed by Lee Daniels and co-produced by Daniels' company, Lee Daniels Entertainment, and the Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness owned, Smokewood Entertainment Group. The two production companies had previously collaborated with Daniels on Tennessee.[1]" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Precious has multiple producers — with twelve in total, which includes..." - is this sentence grammatically correct?

Done re-worded to "Precious has, in total, twelve producers:" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from that, it's usual to discuss the producers with just the "producer" credit, and not all the executive producers. This goes for the infobox too. Winfrey is probably worth a mention for her raising the profile of the film, but she is mentioned later
The sentence starting "Due to the mature subject matter..." - "Due to..." and "because..." means the same thing and is redundant here.

Done changed "because" to "for" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe mention what 34th Street Films usually do - they sound like a film company so why is this their first theatrical film?

No explanation was given in the source (nor could I find any) that explain why Precious is the companies first film. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe expand on the lawsuits? Why were they fighting?

Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During the five week period ..." - New York City has already been mentioned, so the fact that it's in New York State doesn't need to be specified.

Done re-worded to "During the five week period of filming, the film was filmed on location in various parts of New York City.[10]" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the film lose all these people? That sentence sounds ominous and doesn't really explain what happened.

Done I re-worded the sentence explaining that no reason was given for the loss of the crew members. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

"Daniels confirmed that, as part of promotion from the soundtrack..." this is in future tense. Has it not happened yet, or does it need updating now?

Done re-worded to "Daniels stated that there are plans to release Blige's "I Can See in Color" as a single from the soundtrack.[5]" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy[edit]

Seems a strange section heading - I've never seen it before and don't really know what it means. having said that, I don't know what else I'd suggest

Done changed to "Marketing" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changeling (which is a FA) uses this section title. —Mike Allen 08:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"2009 25th Sundance Film Festival" - just needs to say 2009 or 25th; ditto for "the 2009 62nd Cannes Film Festival"

Done I changed it to "2009 Sundance Film Festival" and "62nd Cannes Film Festival" Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"to show Precious at Cannes because he didn't want" - should be "did not"

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The French viewed the film..." - which french? All French people? French critics? If so, who? this needs a citation too.

Done I removed the sentence. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"At a press conference, with the film's cast..." - this is a long-winded sentence

Done re-worded to "At a press conference, regarding the film," Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to mention what film the trailers being shown at?

I think it's necessary because it shows how the film was promoted. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

"Keith Uhlich, of Time Out New York, felt that the film didn't ..." - another contraction out of quotes, should be "did not"

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations[edit]

"Carey will be presented..." - this is now out of date

Done Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The title of the film doesn't match that of the article (should just be "Push at the Internet Movie Database" etc)

All the website's listed in "External links" (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, allmovie, box office mojo) list the film's title as Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Images all need WP:ALT text added.

Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's a lot of stuff, hope it helps.--Beloved Freak 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]