Talk:Dark Shadows (film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aebyrne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot
Plot summary is extremely long. generalpompeyo (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw it and I completely agree. It needs to be re-written or trimmed down. Charlr6 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a go at trimming it down a little. It still could do with lots more work, but due to the fragmented nature of the story and the number of plot beats, I'm finding it difficult to shorten it further. --82.20.51.66 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I did think it would be hard. I was going to go through it myself but I didn't as I was scared I might delete some important subplot. Charlr6 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone seems to have put back the 3000 words I removed from the plot section. What a waste of my time; I'm not too familiar with wiki-editing, but I thought the point was to trim the plot? --83.100.238.37 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's most likely because the film is recent, and like IP 82.20.51.66 said, it's hard to summarise a film with a lot of subplot and skip explaining things as they affect other happenings. Perhaps someone with a more firm grasp of condensing plots while still covering the main points will come along and cut the current 1800 (it certainly was never 3000) or so words down to a more easily digestible amount. 110.33.230.120 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Over a year and half later and this is still long and almost completely incoherent.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.134.15 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I may take a stab at it at some point. zzz (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Album cover images
I have removed the album cover images from this article several times, and been repeatedly reverted. There is no automatic entitlement to non-free content, and, while it is generally held that a single album cover on an article specifically about an album is an acceptable use, this does not extend to other articles, whether or not the album has its own article. As it is, I can see no reason why these album covers are significant in and of themselves, and I can see no way in which reader understanding is increased by displaying them here. Does anyone have any good, policy-based reasons for them to be here? As an aside, could we please keep the covers off the article while it is discussed? As per the non-free content criteria, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include content, and so, until there is a solid consensus for its use, it should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just being framed as a no-win situation for anyone who wants to upload a non-free image; in this case, myself. If I didn't think they were relevant to the article, I wouldn't have uploaded them. As far as I can tell from those 10 points, the images cannot be non-free, as they're covers of copyrighted works; there's minimal use of them (i.e. they are only on this one article); they have been previously published, obviously; they meet general content standards; they meet media-specific criteria; they are only used in one article; they are significant by context, but I think any image could be argued that its omission would not be detrimental to an understanding (but then, there would be no images on Wikipedia); they're being used appropriately in terms of location, and the description page is generally suitable. Additionally, they're not being used for commercial benefit (it's not as if there's a link to their Amazon page or text saying "BUY NOW", so how could they be) and they're small (after being resized). There is no other way one could argue for their inclusion.


 * Basically, I felt they added additional context and more of a full impression to the page, and I was passionate about the music, so I uploaded them. I don't think this talk page is going to become a space for a solid consensus for anyone agreeing with any viewpoint, so regardless of whether the "burden of proof" lies with myself or not, this looks set to tip in favour of the one who didn't upload the image(s), and that's not fair at all. Even if I created a separate page for both the score and soundtrack, the articles would most likely be tagged for deletion for not being relevant enough to merit whole new pages, and thus, there's not really any other way they could be displayed.  Ss 112  16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you accept that these albums do not warrant their own articles, then you're getting an idea of how insignificant the covers of these albums are. Is there any reason that they themselves are significant? Is there any reason that a reader would have to see them in order to understand the film? J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's still a matter of opinion. I'm talking about what other users would most likely do. I would set up such articles if I thought otherwise. At this point, the insignificant thing, I think, is trying to fight something that you have convinced yourself, in line with Wikipedia policy (as the burden's so on me and everything), that you are right about. Not to get personal, but I'm really surprised there are any images left on any pages you've edited if this is your approach.  Ss 112  11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And further, my point was not that the images were imperative to a having a understanding of the material, just that the material that I inserted myself suited having them there. I'd really like to know what you would consider a worthwhile argument/reason for the inclusion of such images. Exactly what information can any image divulge that any amount of words can't explain? It gives a more instant explanation in a lot of cases, but for things like album covers and other such illustrative, decorative images like film posters, what reason could one provide that it's worth retaining under the "non-free use" policy? I'm not asking you to come up with an idea for me as I've resigned myself to the fact that they will probably be deleted, but an idea as to what criteria help them survive your scrutinisation.  Ss 112  11:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'd really like to know what you would consider a worthwhile argument/reason for the inclusion of such images." I'd want to see evidence that the images were in some way significant. As the non-free content guidelines make clear, there is no automatic entitlement to non-free content, and non-free content may be used only if its presence adds significantly to reader understanding. So, for instance, if a noted artist was hired to produce the album covers and the musicians/film actors have been quoted saying how impressed they were, or if the album covers had to be recalled because of a copyright claim from a third party, or if they aroused particular controversy; these would be examples of times when the album covers themselves were potentially significant. Yes, the general consensus is that these sort of requirements are not needed for articles specifically about the album from which the cover is taken, but in other, related articles, the cover has to be shown to be significant for its use to be justified. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Box Office
The article states that the movie was a box office success. But can you claim the movie was a success when the Warner Brothers has lost money on it? I don't think so. General rule of thumb is, that a movie on a blockbuster-budget must take in twice of its production budget at the box office before it has broken even for the studio. The theatres takes a huge chunk of the gross and the production budget is not the only exspense the studios have on a movie. Marketing is also a big exspense for studios and that comes on top of the production exspenses. According to boxoffice.com it hade a budget of $175 m. marketing included. With a gross of $236,527,149 at the end of september, the risk is very high that Warner Brothers have lost money on it. With a very strong DVD-sale it has the chance of making a profit for them, but the movie has not been a "success" from a financial standpoint. http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/dark-shadows-2012?q=dark%20shadows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.182.153 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree more or less. The exhibitor keeps roughly half the gross, so the film has to gross double its total expenditure before it breaks even at the box office. That said most films are box-office 'flops' these days by the traditional definition because most of them don't actually break even until they reach their secondary markets. In view of that we should probably refrain from labelling films as "successes" or "bombs" unless sources discuss them in those terms because it is technically original research otherwise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dark Shadows (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729030116/http://voices.yahoo.com/tim-burtons-dark-shadows-full-whimsy-camp-11341608.html to http://voices.yahoo.com/tim-burtons-dark-shadows-full-whimsy-camp-11341608.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)