Talk:The Conjuring/Archive 1

Positivity of reviews
The phrase "critical acclaim" is certainly not appropriate for this film. That the film has received "positive reviews" is true, but not all of the reviews have been positive so that phrase is also not wholly accurate. "Generally favourable" is both sourced and accurate. GDallimore (Talk) 11:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Box office speculation
Explain again what possible useful purpose box office speculation serves this article? GDallimore (Talk) 22:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it not sourced to a reliable source? And is that not done in every film article? Explain your reason for labeling it "speculation".  STATic  message me!  23:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Box office speculation has been included in many film articles listed under the good article criteria (e.g. The Dark Knight Rises). I've included the speculation for The Conjuring with multiple sources because it illustrates the financial expectations of the film prior to the film's release. This illustration is purposeful because a comparison between expected gross and actual gross can further support whether or not the film was a success. While it is not mentioned in the Manual of Style for Film, release speculation is additional coverage that can be an interesting aspect in seeing how a film plays out during its opening weekend. – TFunk (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument that "it's sourced" is irrelevant. Why? WP:IINFO.
 * Also, I picked a random Good article: Batman_begins. Nope, no box office speculation. Why? Because the ACTUAL box office figures are now available and are far more relevant, rendering the speculation obsolete and useless. And yes, it remains speculation even though it is sourced. If it were unsourced speculation, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
 * Also, your argument that "a comparison between expected gross and actual gross can further support whether or not the film was a success" is not relevant in this case. Why? Because the speculation was made simply on the basis of multiplying up the first day's takings, not some advanced sense of expectation of a film's success. It was nothing more than a simple mathematical multiplication. As the source itself said, it would have been surprising if the prediction hadn't come true - rendering the speculation pointless now the full facts are available.
 * Also, as you point out, it's not something that's recommended by MOSFILM. GDallimore (Talk) 10:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I said that it was not mentioned in the MOSFILM, not that it is not recommended. In other words, I think that it should be made noted of in the MOSFILM to avoid future confusion between contributors. Overall, I've condensed the box office speculation into one short sentence explaining the film's financial standing prior to its release. In a way, it is similar to why Development and Pre-production sections are included in articles. People find it interesting to know the background to a given topic. – TFunk (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Conjuring (film) → The Conjuring – Requested name currently redirects to Conjuration (disambiguation) but does not appear to be ambiguous. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Use of The in the title is perfectly adequate disambig from Conjuring to warrant this move. Zarcadia (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support.  F i l m F a n  13:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as it seems that The Conjuring is distinct enough from the general act of conjuring. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because The enables it to be distinctive without the (film). -TFunk (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plot Needs a Bit more Detail
I feel like while the plot synopsis should be short and concise, it's glossing over major portions of the storyline that are fairly important, and conveys an inaccurate portrayal of the film, presenting most focus on the Perron family, and removing several important scenes/characters from the description. I'm not saying everything has to be in there, but if something is important to the plot or characters, I think it warrants a brief description. (Ex. the Warren's daughter being attacked is a huge scene, but it's not even mentioned, and the description basically ignores the last 10 minutes of the film.)

Being short and concise is one thing, but this is a pretty poor synopsis of the film, and really doesn't give the reader an idea of what the actual storyline is like. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually think the synopsis section is pretty good. Yes, many details are left out, but it captures the essence of the story in a relatively short amount of space, which is its purpose. The point is not to describe everything that happens in the movie, but to give the reader a basic understanding of the story. Too many details are unnecessary, and make the synopsis unnecessarily long. 2rock (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see the movie, so someone that has and has a good understanding of the plot with a good writing skill needs to write a plot that meets WP:PLOT, and successfully summarizes the main points of the movie. This one is currently lacking in some points.  STATic  message me!  23:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Truth?
Taking quite seriously Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I was curious to see the voice about 'The Conjuring'. Seeing that the movie is reported to be "based on a true story", and checking the note n°5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conjuring#cite_note-5) I was quite disconcerted in realizing that the very same link, instead of supporting the veracity of the story, actually noted how it was based only on what was reported from Ed and Lorraine Warren, two discussed paranormal investigators. Please also check Wikipedia's voice about them: it describes how the main cases they narrate remain filled with questions and skepticisms or are totally rejected from critics. I personally object to such a "based on a true story" description on the voice, possibly we should have something along the line of 'the movie is based on a story that the american paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren pretend to be true'? 79.53.135.103 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

True events?
How can there be an unsourced claim like: There is nothing in this article that refers to any "true events" and this storyline is so ludicrous and invented, I can't believe there is no section challenging this contention that there is some subdivision in Rhode Island that has a high rate of murder suicides and incidents of mothers killing their children....I think a story like that would have made national news. Liz Read! Talk! 13:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The film, starring Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson as Ed and Lorraine Warren, and is based on allegedly true events reported by the Warrens

— &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Liz. I have made the revision. Cheers!