Talk:A Christmas Carol (2009 film)/Archive 1

Crystal ball
This film may be too far in the future to warrant an article at the present. According to Variety, "A Christmas Carol becomes one of several high profile projects for Carrey, who hasn't determined which he'll make next, or how many he'll be able to complete by next summer, when studios are bracing for possible labor stoppage." I would suggest deletion without prejudice against recreation when this film actually approaches production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we stick to verifiable facts that are attributed to reliable sources, we aren't crystal balling. It's a high profile film that's been confirmed. -- MisterHand 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just a matter of WP:CRYSTAL, but WP:CFORK as well. There is nothing more than an announcement at the present, and there is no valid criteria for actual production.  Thus, this article could remain a stub for an unnecessarily long time.  It's basically "overkill" to create a film article for every announcement that's made because not all projects will enter production, even high profile projects.  Films like Gears of War are deleted because there is nothing more than an announcement.  The quote from Variety indicates the uncertainty of this film taking place right away because Jim Carrey has several projects from which he can choose.  You say that the film is confirmed, but this does not at all mean that the film will be made.  There are numerous issues that projects encounter before actual production -- script issues, budget issues, et cetera.  It's okay to have coverage, but if production of a film is not certain enough to warrant its own article, it should be placed under the umbrella of a broader article.  A couple of examples of the redirects are Knight Rider (film) and Logan's Run. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike the other films you've mentioned, this one currently has an attached director and a star and is in the process of casting. Of course, if the project falls apart (as is the case with your examples) then it would be appropriate to get rid of it. But at this point all indications are that it's going forward. Plus, there's no good place to put the coverage since there are several Carol films and a paragraph on this film wouldn't really fit in any of the existing articles. -- MisterHand 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Variety sentence contradicts your claim that all signs indicate that it will be made, as Carrey has not decided what project he would pursue next -- he also has Ripley's Believe It Or Not!, I Love You Phillip Morris, Me Time, and Sober Buddies from which to choose, so the stubby nature of any of them in regard to others is highly likely. James Cameron planned to make either Battle Angel or Avatar a while ago, but since he went with Avatar, Battle Angel was deleted.  Also, there are examples of films with directors attached that haven't taken off yet: Zack Snyder with Army of the Dead and Sucker Punch, M. Night Shyamalan with Avatar: The Last Airbender, Robert Rodriguez with Barbarella or The Jetsons or Land of the Lost (he hasn't decided yet), Guillermo del Toro with Deadman and Tarzan, Neil Gaiman with Death and Me, Paul W.S. Anderson and Jason Statham with Death Race, Anderson with Spy Hunter, Edward Zwick and Daniel Craig with Defiance, David S. Goyer with The Invisible Man and Scanners and Super Max, Tom Tykwer and Clive Owen with The International, John Woo with Ninja Gold, Darren Aronofsky with Noah, Roman Polanski with Pompeii, Sylvain White with Castlevania and Ronin, Shekhar Kapur and Nicolas Cage with The Sadhu, Gregor Jordan with The Tripods, Martin Campbell with Unstoppable, and Michael Mann and Leonardo DiCaprio in an untitled project, and Martin Scorsese and DiCaprio with The Wolf of Wall Street.  Not to mention the multiple announced projects under Neil Marshall: Outpost, The Eagle's Nest, The Sword and the Fury, The Ninth Legion, Sherlock Holmes, and The Descent 2.  Among these are several films that have actors attached as well, but no certainty about actual production at this point.  I do keep track of these things, you know, and it shouldn't be an approach of "Let's create an article because there are no signs it won't take place."  That creates a lot of unnecessary stubs.  One last example is Spy Hunter, which had John Woo as the director and Dwayne Johnson as the star.  But the project is currently in development hell.  As for placement, I don't see why the information can't be placed at the end of A Christmas Carol since the article only has a 2/3-line paragraph, and it should also be stated that Carrey has not chosen to actively pursue A Christmas Carol out of his choices. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Erik. Having an director attached doesn't mean anything. Look how many directors were attached to the Superman project for the last 20 years before it was finally made. How many directors were attached to ''Ripley's Believe it or Not"? Crew can be replaced at any moment in the film making process, especially when a film has yet to enter production, or even set a date. No, production says the film will be almost certain to get made and released, not a director attached, or a writer, or a producer for that matter.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, Zemeckis isn't just a gun for hire, he's a producer and actually driving the project. Like I said above, let's keep an eye on this one and if it does enter development hell we can redirect or delete appropriately. -- MisterHand 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the idea behind crystal ball. What makes this a high profile film? It's only been known since Friday. Zemeckis isn't a god, him being attached to films doesn't make them just happen. He still has to secure money, find the rest of the cast, finish the script for one. Set a production start date. Set a release date. It doesn't help that your lead even says the Carrey hasn't stated this is his next project or not. Considering the fact that he may decide to do something else, and be replaced because a potential new schedule could conflict to what Zemeckis wants to do. This should be mentioned on Zemeckis' page and Carrey's page; it doesn't warrant an article at the moment.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bignole is right. Film announcements suffer from recentism -- a project can be revealed, then nothing happens with it for months at an end. That's the case with the films I mentioned before. It's somewhat a knee-jerk reaction to create a film article when something is announced, then nothing happens for a while. It can be headline of the week, but it's difficult to determine if people are still talking about the project by next week or next month. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
I've requested a move to A Christmas Carol (2009 film) because the IMDb entry is actually this, and not the 2008 one that was listed in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just merge it back into A Christmas Carol or whatever relevant article may exist on the films/adaptations as a whole. If this film does go into production, then it can warrant a page. At the moment, it seems to violate CRYSTALBALL and possibly WP:NF. (And definitely the latter if the latest emendation goes through.) All we seem to know right now is some early prepro crew, one actor *maybe* and that it will be filmed a la Polar Express. That's not really enough for an article anyway - this can easily be fit into a subsection of the source material's article. If it never is released, then it will still be notable as a section of that article, and if it does go through, a split can occur then. Girolamo Savonarola 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Production?
From Carrey's description, it seems that he has finished his voice over for the character. I believe this might speed up production, ad it might be released by the holiday season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.168.207 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary?
What kind of a plot summary is on this article? It's short and a stub. Someone mind changing it?--Red Wiki 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)


 * I'd now say the summary is too long. Surely the point of the page is to discuss this version (and possibly how it differs from Dicken's orginal) NOT what the story is. --TimothyJacobson (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of word "Carol"
The word "Carol" requires an internal link to the article Carol (music). This is because any reader has the right to know what is the correct meaning of the title of this movie. I guess most native English readers know what a carol is. Most others do not. I recently added the internal link, but my edit was undone, because someone believed that the link "is not helpful to the readers" in this context.

An internal link is not an imposition. Those who don't care or who don't need an explanation, simply won't use it. Therefore, if an editor believes that the internal link "is not helpful to the readers", that is not enough to justify the deletion of the link. It is quite obvious to me that I am one reader and the link was useful to me, and other non-native english readers, besides me, may possibly be curious to know what is a Carol. Since you cannot prove the contrary, in order to justify the deletion of my edit, you should prove that it is harmful to those who don't need it.

Roberto Perrotta —Comment added by 94.37.230.128 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary to prove that is isn't harmful, it is necessary to prove its usefulness. It would be an appropriate link somewhere in the prose, maybe even in the lede, if the meaning had anything to do with the film. It doesn't, though, and readers won't develop a better understanding of this subject by reading that subject. Sorry. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Renamed
Shouldn't the article be renamed to it's official name Disney's A Christmas Carol? Also this line " The film also marks Jim Carrey's first role in a Disney film." And? What is that supposed to indicate? -- Mike   Allen   06:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it is supposed to be the common name, doing some Google comparison shows that "jim carrey" "a christmas carol" gets 662,000 hits where "jim carrey" "disney's a christmas carol" gets 6,120,000 hits. This may help inform about a move. Erik (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on my ggogle it doesn't. "jim carrey" "a christmas carol" gets 3,360,000  hits and "jim carrey" "disney's a christmas carol" gets 463,000 hits.  I don't think it is relevant though - they are both official names according to IMDB so either is acceptable.  If one is taken then the other is the logical choice. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was moved to "Disney's" it would also remove the disambiguation (2009 film). --  Mike   Allen   20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * 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: Not moved. There was no consensus in the discussion in favor of this move, and naming guidelines do not require the use of the exact official name. RL0919 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol (2009 film) → Disney's A Christmas Carol — The official name and to avoid the unnecessary disambiguation (2009 film). — Mike   Allen   20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral since titles seem interchangeable. I was keen on the move at first based on my Google hits, but Betty's Google hits in a different English-language territory show a difference.  Disney's A Christmas Carol already redirects here if someone searches on Wikipedia, for that specific title, and its mention in the lead sentence helps identify the two similar titles in a regular search.  We could move it, but I don't feel like it makes a big difference. Erik (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It already redirects. Also, some statistics to consider:


 * Google search result for <"Disney's A Christmas Carol">: 5,550,000
 * Google search result for : 5,910,000

They are about the same. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For - I don't think it's imperative but I do see the logic in removing the disambiguation. I daresay more people will search for "Disney's A Christmas Carol" than "A Christmas Carol (2009 film)". Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Against: IMDb doesn't allow filmmaker possessives (it's listed there as A Christmas Carol) and Wikipedia already lists similar titles, like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Dracula (1992), as such even though their full titles are preceded by "Tim Burton's" and "Bram Stoker's" respectively. Nothing wrong with mentioning "Disney's" in the article header though. Chris 42 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Against, per Chris_42. On top of that, the vast majority of WP articles about Disney films don't have names starting with "Disney's", despite the studio having promoted many of them that way. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Against, per Chris_42, as well. To be honest, I originally was for the move, just as it seemed to make the specific title more clear, but the reasoning Chris_42 provides is sound and provides precedent. Sean (talk || contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For and Comment to Chris: I understand it's listed on IMDb as A Christmas Carol and you state that they don't allow filmmaker possessives; but this is Wikipedia, not IMDb. :) Also, the reason the other Dinsey films don't have Disney's in front of the title is because it's original stories.  A Christmas Carol has been re-done numerous times, and this is Disney's take on the story, which therefore should have their name stamped in front of it. --  Mike   Allen   23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, very few of Disney's films are original stories. Many, if not most, of the films have been redone numerous times before Disney. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But over 20 different times? -- Mike   Allen   03:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the other adaptations don't include a possessive in the title so all we know is that each one is "a version" of the story and this one is really no different. The reason I alluded to IMDb is that IMO its policy on titles sets a good precedent: the on-screen title of the film on its first showing, excluding author/filmmaker possessives (since they are technically not part of the work that is about to be presented). Frankenstein (1994) is another example in which the possessive is not included. It's basically saying "Here is a film based on Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein", the same as "This film is the Disney version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol". In other words, what follows is a retelling of A Christmas Carol. I just don't see why Disney should be singled out for special treatment. In addition, Naming conventions states that article names should be consistent: "Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." However, it goes on to say that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". :-) Chris 42 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Against per Chris_42. Most Disney films are marketed as "(Walt) Disney's X".  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that according to the MPAA the Disney version of "A Christmas Carol" was registered as "Disney's A Christmas Carol". Other Disney films like Hannah Montana, Race to Witch Mountain, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King were all registered under those names without the "Disney" bit appended. In that respect I'm changing my vote to a a strong "FOR" because there does seem to be an intention that the Disney bit is part of its proper title, rather than just a production credit. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the copywright database indicates: "Disney's A Christmas carol. Add. ti. A Christmas carol." BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 13:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral If there is already a redirect and the titles are so similar why change it. I doubt anyone is having a hard time finding the article.  Either way there is going to be a redirect and they both get to the same place, what's the difference. --Peppage tlk  13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it sounds like a good idea. This movie seems to usually contain Disney's while other Disney movies don't. This also provides a neat way to remove the parenthetical note. ÷seresin 08:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Against Such change would be unsustainable. What makes you think Disney won't re-do it yet again in several decades time? Bloodstriker (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't predict the future. And if that were to happen, what makes you think we couldn't take the appropriate measures to change it?  Nothing is set in stone at Wikipedia, it's always changeable.  —  Mike   Allen   20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning for. I'd like to see those opposed to the move respond to Bovineboy2008's comments above, about MPAA registrations and the copyright database. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the copyright database but what does it say in respect of the examples I gave above: Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, none of which includes its author possessive on Wikipedia? Chris 42 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ChaosMaster just closed this as "move" and moved the article, yet I only see three votes "for", "five" against, and three "neutral" - how does this equal a consenus for moving the article? I'm against, btw... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With only three definite votes for, it's not consensus. I would move it back but that would probably create a circular redirect from A Christmas Carol (2009 film). I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of article moving — perhaps an admin will oblige? Chris 42 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if that don't beat all I've ever seen. ChaosMaster you know better than this.  I'll move it back.   Also, I wasn't aware we were "voting", I thought consensus went by the quality of the arguments?  Apparently an Admin has a huge backlog. —  Mike   Allen   19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.