Talk:Burden of Dreams

Fair use rationale for Image:Burdenofdream.jpg
Image:Burdenofdream.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't really about the movie
I just stumbled onto this page and am wondering why the whole article is about the film being a film verite film? No synopsis or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.82.250.131 (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for Reshaping the Article
So, now that User:Gilliesz has kindly added information directly pertaining to the movie, would anyone object if we scrapped most of the material about whether or not Blank is a cinema verité filmmaker? It has very little bearing on Burden of Dreams but as things currently stand, it takes up the first several paragraphs, after which the description of the production of the film comes off as more of an after-thought. We could probably jump right from the first paragraph to the sixth and have a shorter but more on-point article about the film. That said, I would certainly be amenable to salvaging content from the fifth paragraph, where it manages to bear on the production. Do people have opinions on the subject? Tigercompanion25 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to object, so I'm going to go ahead and reshape the article. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No objections at all, had been meaning to remove that myself one of these days. The Interior  (Talk) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)