Talk:Soul Surfer (film)

Article assessment
I updated the article from Stub-class to C-class based on my expansion. To get to B-class, the article needs to include information about the Soul Surfer's reception when the film comes out. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so fast! A lot can happen in two months; the synopsis section (should be plot) is atrocious. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so, I strongly dislike this movie, but in the Wikimedia spirit I wish to sharpen its page, primarily in a stylistic manner. Now, Wiki pages don't have to be stylistically revolutionary; but I enjoy encouraging better writing manner on the grammerless world of the interwebs. So, lets tackle the opening paragraph. Sentence one: Seriously run-on. It may not seem that way, as it is not long, but the form of the sentence indicates the need for two separated sentences. Why? Because we're introducing two different sets actions and subjects before and after the comma. So, fact, its a film about Ms. Hamilton. Fact 2, she lost her arm at the age of thirteen. These phrases represent two separate trains of thought modifying different subjects. Before the comma we're modifying the film, after the comma we're modifying Ms. Hamilton. It would be an appropriate place to utilize a semi-colon, but they always get people into grammatical trouble. So, its two sentences now.

Next sentence. It states the director based the script on the autobiography and interviews with the Hamiltons. I have two issues with this one. First, it is generally poor form to refer to a autobiography (which, from what I can tell, Soul Surfer is) as a "biographical book" as that implies that the book was written by an outside party other than the subject (biographies are always written by an outside party and autobiographies by the subject, an important distinction). It seems Ms. Hamilton either penned the work herself or it was ghost-written and attributed to her. In either case it is marketed as an autobiography, and should be indicated here as such. Also the word "biography" always refers to a book (the Latin root "graph" literately meaning "something marked"). Thus "biographical book" is redundant as you are saying, "a book written about a person book." This sentence has one other small rub. It states "filmmakers' (plural possessive) interviews" but previously the subject of the sentence was the singular filmmaker Mr. McNamara. It is possible that others on the production team did in fact participate in interview. However, Mr. McNamara is the only one we have introduced. Thus, I a changing it to the singular possessive "filmmaker's."

Next sentence, the one that irks me the most. It states that the title is "word play"[sic] on the term soul surfer. Now, feel free to read the wiki article on word play but I can assure you that this is an improper use of the term. "Word play" would denote some kind of alliteration or linguistic tact in sentence structure. The title is a reference to a known term. For instance, word play is often pun like, for instance: When the track coach instructed the resting distance runners to remove themselves from the incoming sprinters, one of the distances runners complained, "But Coach, who's really more important in the long run?" See, while extremely lame, that is an example of word play in the form of the double meaning of long run. The distance runners are obviously inclined to be better than the sprinters on long distances, and this runner seems to imply they are more important to the team's future as well.

In closing, this whole thing needs more citations, and I will mark it as such. Also, these changes, other than the final one, are all really more issues of grammar and usage than factual accuracy, but I feel they make the article more readable, which is imperative in the opening as it often dictates weather readers move on to the rest of the article or not. There's obviously other things that need to be changed, but I'm too emotionally exhausted after the opening three sentences to go on.TQMurphy (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

JustinTime55: When I read you last revision I smacked myself right in the forehead for having not seen that earlier. Spirituality doesn't compute in my thought process. Your totally right, it is word play, I'm glad I was able to help you clarify that. Anyways, I hope my other minor changes were appreciated. Sorry for the small tresties above, slow day at work. One other note, perhaps the opening would benefit from a plug on the cristian/religious message of the film, you note that later in the production notes about the conflicts between production crew and the Hamiltons. But it was an very strong undercurrent totally unknown to many who may have just agreed to going to it with friends and later had to try to get his seven dollar back so as to avoid being preached too for ninety minuets.TQMurphy (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * TQ, it is not necessary to have citations in the lead section except to back potentially controversial sentences. For example, the Featured Article intelligent design is cited very thoroughly, where the Featured Article CSI effect is not. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ ABOUT THE FINALE:  Did this really happen? Did the winner of a surfing contest yield her place to Bethany?? If so, when, where, and who?? Sussmanbern (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Visual effects
References to use. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On Location: L.A.-based effects company Engine Room rides the wave of 'Soul Surfer'
 * Engine Room Brings Photoreal Effects to Soul Surfer

Movie
A giood movie biut in which way is thie biook different, didnt she appiear in the movie herself ion the side in one scene1tt Thiat wiould be surely itnersting --88.66.146.82 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)