Talk:High-Rise (film)

Please somebody remove the Snowpiercer reference
That reference does not make any sense at all.

Synopsis
I am adding the official synopsis, as found on the production company website. Jtparkinson (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source it first. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, we are trying to create an accurate synopsis reflecting ALL the main characters in the film including Richard Wilder, who is the second lead. We find it disappointing that you persist in reverting every single edit as you feel it's cut and paste, when it is actually sourced from our own original text which we've provided to the press. In our edits however we've made the text completely new, only to find that you won't accept any changes at all to the synopsis.

Added to which, we could by rights take down the existing synopsis you seem so determined to protect, as it is heavily drawn from this source, with phrases lifted wholesale.

http://www.screendaily.com/news/irons-miller-join-high-rise/5071683.article

Ironically this is text we actually created for the film in a press release. You'll no doubt say we can't prove it, it means nothing here etc, however we're just interested in getting Wilder in the article.

What do you reckon? Want to do it yourself? Else you are insisting that people don't know about a big part of the film.

Journalists often copy synopses for films wholesale from Wikipedia, so this Daily Mail article fails to mention Wilder. This is your doing. Either fix it or get out of the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2731791/Sienna-Miller-harks-disco-era-butterfly-collared-shirt-black-cap.html

Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So if you're capable of writing it for a press release then I'm sure you're capable of writing it again without copy and pasting it from a website. I have nothing against the full synopsis being written, all characters should be included of course but like I've said, oh I dunno, probably five times now, do not copy and paste it. The edits that I JUST recently reverted were from the website, again. Copy and paste.


 * Heavily drawn isn't the same thing as copy and paste. Is it? I never said you couldn't write a synopsis, I just said don't copy and paste it. Big difference. So either stop copying and pasting it or know what you're talking about.


 * And Daily Mail isn't a reliable source. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. since you are still claiming to be apart of this film and still disruptively editing, I could "by right" make sure you don't edit this page at all since it's a conflict of interest. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not saying the Daily Mail is a reliable source. We are saying the Daily Mail lifted the info on the film from Wikipedia, and thus omitted a main character because you disallowed all edits including him.

Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're still missing the point of why I reverted the edits. It had nothing to do with the inclusion of his character, it was ONLY because it was copy and pasted. That was the only problem. Write whatever you want as long as it's accurate and not copied from a website. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So the fact that the film is a satire, and this and the correct wording is sourced (not satire film), why do you continue to remove it?

Also this sentence is not complete: In 1975 in England, on the eve of Margaret Thatcher's ascent to political power - yes? then what? The sentence should continue. It is not a correct establisher.

Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I said, that's just not things are worded in the lead. How is it a satire but not a satire film? But it's a film that's a satire? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Once you have established that it is a film, it would be correct to refer to it just as a satire.

If you wanted to twin establishing it as a film with being a satire, it would be referred to as a satirical film. Not a satire film. That term doesn't exist.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Satirical_films

217.138.13.202 (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes to grammar and wording in the "Plot section." The word "summarily" was used three times, along with odd phrases like "reverts back," "faction off," "after a squash court with Royal," "residences within the high rise start to descend from reason" and "begin working on the high rise to a more suitable management."

The sentence "He is summarily killed by Charlotte, Ann Royal and Ann Sheridan; through the kaleidoscope of Charlotte's son Toby (implied earlier that Royal is his father)" makes no sense.

The word "on" is often used instead of "in" ("a party being held on Charlotte's apartment," "stuck on the elevator"). 203.214.80.117 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Production
I am adding details of Nicolas Roeg, Paul Mayersberg and Rudy Wurlitzer involvement in an earlier incarnation of the film. Jtparkinson (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source it first. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

All the information was cited - why did you delete it? This is very frustrating. The page should reflect that the film's producer has been developing the project for many years with different writers and directors. It currently implies that the director is responsible for the film making it into production. If you think something is not cited then add a "citation needed" box - don't just delete all my work. Jtparkinson (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the summary was copy and pasted from the website. That's a no no. Which I've told you three times now. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And no, I will not just add a "citation needed" box. Everything needs to be sourced, otherwise it will be removed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I ackonwlege that the synopsis is the same - which is why I didn't ask you about it again. I'm talking about the production history section, and the previous attempts to make the film. If you just revert then I don't know what the issue is. I am trying to add citations for every piece of info but as you just delete everything I do it's impossible to update the page. Jtparkinson (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to add citations at the same time as adding the info you are sourcing. Otherwise it just looks like unsourced info. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been adding citations at the same time I add new info!! I am going to to add a section about the Vincenzo Natali version of the film - our source is The Wall Street Journal - if you have an issues with it, please explain them and it will be rectified. Jtparkinson (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying the Vincenzo Natali additions. Now I'm adding details about Nic Roeg and a quote from Tom Hiddleston about working with the producer. If you have any issues, please explain them rather than deleting the info, so I can rectify. Jtparkinson (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When I revert an edit, it's for a reason, so undoing my revert doesn't help your case. You can't source IMDb as a relible source. And I don't even know what you did with the last edit but adding 10 new lines and then adding a reference tag that doesn't exist. It was just a mess so I reverted it. Also per WP:REALTIME, don't use phrases like "currently" or "30 years ago" because that can change. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant Thatcher reference
"On the eve of Margaret Thatcher ascending to power" is irrelevant to the book, which was written and published before this happened or was on anyone's radar. Also, it's debatable whether 1975 really was "the eve" of Thatcher coming to power, which happened 4 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.168.72 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Action film
For some reason this is described as an action film, but I don't think anyone would ever describe it as this, so I'll delete it. If anybody has any objections please say here. Willowandglass (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)