Talk:Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters

Poster
I switched out the French poster in favor of an American one. I like the old image a lot, but I don't think it represents the movie very well to those unfamiliar with it, I feel the new image is more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Roy Scheider's vs. alternate narration on 2001 DVD realease
I contacted Paul Schrader personally on this, here is his response (from 2011-11-01):

When we first did the WB DVD at Skywalker for some reason I've never figured out the temp narration done by my friend photographer Paul Jasmin was used instead of Roy Scheider's. It was a mistake I was able to correct when we did the Criterion version.

Robert Kerber (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mishima on Japanese TV
The following sentence has been removed by user JoshuSasori from the article as no source for this information had been given:

Despite this, it has broadcast several times on Japanese TV (with a scene in a gay bar edited out) and it is legal to import the DVD release.

If someone has more info on this, it is appreciated. Robert Kerber (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The new film
Okay you have yet to present any connection between the two films other then they are both about Mishima. The references with the last attempt were, sadly, laughable. None of the three mentioned any connection between the two films. Please be aware that IMDb cannot be used as a ref for anything. As I said before there are plenty of historical figures who have had numerous films about them. With the exception of the occasional sequel situation (such as Elizabeth and Elizabeth: The Golden Age) these films are not a legacy of one another. Your assertion that there is somehow a connection between this film and the new one because this one has never been shown in Japan is, at best, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Until you can provide an interview with the makers of the new film stating that they made theirs because Schrader's has not been shown (which flies in the face of the fact that DVDs have made the film available to Japanese viewers for years) OR is what it remains. Although it barely meets Wikipedia's guidelines for "See also" sections the one that I added allows readers of this page to know that another film exists and I have by creating it I have tried to reach a compromise. You may certainly seek other input from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or from WP:DR of WP:3O. but you should not reenter your theory until you find a WP:VERIFIABLE source to back it up. MarnetteD | Talk 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Followup question. To follow you theory which seems to be - Film A made in release in 1985 exists - Film B released in 2012 exists - film B was made because film A never had a theatrical release in Japan. So are we to infer that if Shrader's film had ever had a theatrical release in Japan that Kōji Wakamatsu would never have made his film. That would seem to fly in the face of the creative spirit of filmmakers, authors, musicians and on and on. MarnetteD | Talk 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just found the article for the new film and have added it to the see also section and it should now meet Wikiguidelines for this kind of entry. MarnetteD | Talk 01:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD, you obviously still haven't understood my point, and your statement that it is "laughable" is unnescessarily snobbish. (I am the main author of the German wiki entry of this film which was rewarded a "good article", so I seem to know what I'm doing, don't I?) The connection is the simple contradiction that Schrader's film is still not officially shown in Japan (it is only available via IMPORT DVDs), but a Japanese film has now been made and shown. This is why my putting in context with "despite this" in one paragraph makes much more sense this way than a seperate "see also" section. Btw I know about the questioned reliability of Imdb, trivia especially, but it is accepted on wiki for main facts as premiere dates.
 * Anyway, I'll also post this on the dispute resolution board. – Robert Kerber (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have still provided no reference that the Japanese film was made because Schrader's film has not shown there. MarnetteD | Talk 14:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this has never been my point, but "The connection is the simple contradiction that Schrader's film is still not officially shown in Japan, but a Japanese film has now been made and shown.". - Robert Kerber (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "neither reference supports the statement and you cannot use IMDb as a reference-fort the 3rd time - do not restore until dispute reloution has finished" – I a) object to the first part of this sentence and b) could have reverted your revert while ordering that you not restore just the way you did in the second part, but I don't work and communicate that way. I'll wait what comes out of the dispute. – Robert Kerber (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the edit is disputed, then it should not be added to the article until the dispute has been resolved through that channel. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The edits are disputed, and are now a subject of discussion at the WikiProject Film. – Robert Kerber (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, this seems very simple: there is no source offered that says the recent film was made because the earlier film was not shown in Japan. Until such a reliable source is offered, this dispute is moot. There is no apparent connection between the two films other than that they are about the same person. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "there is no source offered that says the recent film was made because the earlier film was not shown in Japan." That's not what I wanted to point out. I've explained it in my note from 08:37, 23 June 2012. – Robert Kerber (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The objection to this edit is that it adds an original analysis ("what I wanted to point out") to the article. The objection seems to be correct, Robert Kerber wants to point something out which is not a fact as such but an analysis, which seems to be Robert Kerber's own analysis. The onus is on Robert Kerber to demonstrate otherwise, and provide a source for the analysis. I don't see why this has got to the stage of requiring dispute resolution, since the policy is clear. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters". Thank you.


 * The instructions for this are quite clear that it is to be placed on my talk page not this page. I have posted my response at the DR page. MarnetteD | Talk 15:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mishima A Life in Four Chapters.png