User talk:Bignole/Sandbox (general)

Writing
I was thinking about creating a Writing subsection based on Cameron's script, Koepp's script, and the shooting script. They're all based on IGN script reviews, though... what do you think? Is that a bit much? For example, the Cameron script had an Electro-type guy as well as Sandman for the villains, and Koepp started out with Green Goblin and Doc Ock. Encyclopedic or not? (Also, I'm commenting here 'cause I figure we're using up a lot of your talk page to discuss fine-tuning the film... if you want me to comment somewhere specific, let me know.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. It's technically part of the production process, those first scripts didn't get off the ground. It isn't like "the Donner cut", so it wouldn't serve best to have its own page, but its was still part of this film, because those people were contracted to write them. It's like including the info about Nic Cage, or anyone else that was interested or contracted to start in the film early on. Oh, using this place to discuss changes is cool. Bignole 12:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go with it. Just need to find the time to do so.  I have a "quiz" this Sunday (40 questions, ain't no quiz to me!), so I suppose my activity might slow down a bit... we'll see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Awards
Alright, what I'll do is use all the awards that they won, then we can go in afterward and trim. I'll be at school all day today, so I won't be able to do anything major until I get home at 6:30. Bignole 12:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. I gotta go to an internship fair this morning, do my library assistant job, my classes in the afternoon, then brush up on HW.  I'll probably be on Wikipedia here and there, but nothing too long to really do any serious editing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Better yet, instead of working them into the page, how about I just grab them and bring them here, and we can weed them out here. Bignole 13:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Glad we finally got the Spider-Man film article renovation underway.  Should give us some quality skill, as we're pretty much re-building the article from ground-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Young Artist Awards Nominated - Best Family Feature Film (fantasy) 2003
 * Award list

World Stunt Awards Nominated - Best Fight (Final fight betw. Gob/Spidey) 2003

World Soundtrack Awards Nominated - Best Original Soundtrack of the Year (Orchestral) 2002

Teen Choice Awards Won - Choice Actor (film), Choice Lip Lock (film), & Choice Movie Nominated - Choice Actress & Choice Chemistry

Satellite Awards Nominated - Best Film Editing & Best Visual Effects 2003

People's Choice Awards Won - Favorite Motion Picture 2003

Online Film Critics Society Awards Nominated - Best Visual Effects 2003

Motion Picture Sound Editors Nominated - Best Sound Editing in Dom. Feat. (Dialogue & ADR) & Best Sound Editing in Dom. Feat (Sound Effects & Foley) 2003

MTV Movie Awards Won - Best Female Performance & Best Kiss 2003 Nominated - Best Movie, Best Villain, & Best Male Perf.

Kids' Choice Awards Nominated - Favorite Male Butt Kicker, Fav. Movie, & Fav Movie Actress 2003

Hugo Awards Nominated - Best Dramatic Presentation (Long form) 2003

Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild Awards Nominated - Best Contemporary Makeup (Feature) 2003

Grammy Awards Nominated - Best Score Soundtrack & Best Song Written for a Motion Picture 2003

Golden Trailer Awards Won - Best Voice Over    2002 Nominated - Best Action, Music, Best of Show

Empire Awards Won - Best Actress 2003 Nominated - Best Director, Best Film

DVD Exclusive Awards Nominated - Best Overal New Extra Features, Original Retrospective Documentoary 2003

Cinema Audio Society Nominate - Outstanding Sound Mixing 2003

BAFTA Award Nominated - Best Achievement in Special Visual Effects 2003

American Choreography Awards Nominated - Outstanding Achievement in Fight Choreography 2002

Saturn Award Won - Best Music Nominated - Best Actor, Actress, Director, Fantasy Film, Special Effects 2003

Academy Award Nominated - Best Sound, Visual Effects 2003

OK, I've finally placed all the awards (minus a couple nominations that were out there. Now we can start cutting. I've striked out all the ones that didn't have pages, which probably means they are not that notable. Two had wins, one in best voice over and the other for best actress. The "best actress" one would be the only one I would think could be overturned, but I doubt it because I don't think "Empire Awards" are that notable, let along recognizable. Some of the ones with pages are just stubs. I think we should keep the "Motion Picture Sound Editors" nomination, the program has apparently been around for 50 years. Thoughts on the others. Bignole 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments

Ghost Rider
I'm gearing up for an exam tonight at 8, so afterward, I'll have more flexibility in my schedule to make serious contributions to Spider-Man for a while. However, I might be focusing my work on Ghost Rider as well, since the film is coming out this February and thus is of more immediate priority. I know there's a lot of information available for it, so I want to develop the article. Also want to do 300 before March... but I'll definitely fit in Spider-Man edits in the time period. Ouch on the 3RR backlash, BTW. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I have several exams coming up this week and next week. I'll see what I can do for Spider-Man while your working on those. 3RR backlash?? It technically didn't affect me, but I felt bad after that user and I had settled the dust over our argument, and then William blocks him for 8 hours. This has just not been my last couple of days. I had my truck belt snap, call a tow truck to come get it (1am), but the "professional parking towing" was there inside of 40 mins towing me away to their lot. Then I find out I have to replace the idler pulley. Then, after all is said and done, a day later they block a user for 3RR vio, when he probably wasn't aware of the rule in the first place, and after I withdrawal the report. I personally think a simple warning would have sufficed, but I'm not an admin (thank god). Anyway, good luck on your exam, and I'll see what I can find for Spider-Man in my free time. Bignole 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found something amusing about the Ghost Rider director bashing IMDb: "IMDB is a bizarre site that tends to get a lot wrong. Jonathan [Hensleigh] has never been a writer on the Ghost Rider movie." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious. My favorite is: "19) The IMDB has the composer listed as David Arnold who has also scored films such as CHANGING LANES, DIE ANOTHER DAY, and others, have you had meetings with him as of yet? Good old IMDB. No, it's Christopher Young. I've never even met David Arnold." Bignole 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't know what Arcayne is trying to do... the history reflects that nobody but him made the comments since my last one (which was signed) last night. Is this a Tyler Durden deal? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure. I was mistaken. Originally I thought it was about the Wastelands, because I was wondering what the connection (other than the three words at the end) was to the Wastelands. Did the director say that was a theme? Anyway, I saw the edit that he made, and I thought maybe he was copying and pasting and accidentally picked up some vandalism (or misplaced inquisition) from the article page, but I couldn't find any. Then I thought maybe there was an edit conflict and the anonymous user just didn't register in the system. I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but since he (in the least) answered the question and isn't persisting in the identification of the individual, I wouldn't think too much about it. Funny references though...lol..Tyler Durden. "I want you to hit me as hard as you can."  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, check this out. I found a site that basically copied articles related to Fight Club from magazine sources (doubt it was legal), but if I ever get around to it, I can use these citations to improve Fight Club from its fanboy hell. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which source? I saw a bunch of them.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Development and production
What's the issue with having a film's development history, when it's not directly related to the successful production attempt, as a separate section? I haven't really established standards for this, but it seems important to have a "break" when there's a lot of production history that does not have direct relation. For example, Watchmen has a huge history, and it may not be to the reader's interest to go through the history before finding out information about its actual production. Granted, some film articles like Iron Man only have a paragraph's worth of backstory, so it's under Production. Any thoughts on the rule of thumb for this kind of section break or lack thereof? (Also, what the heck is with the category requesting a cast section? I swear, if they touch Fight Club... haha.) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it usually doesn't, but it could have to do with the fact that the header "Production" doesn't necessarily have to deal with the literal filming, but everything that went into making the picture. Halloween (film) has casting under production, but that's generally done before filming. I think any "development" information should be in the lead production paragraph and the specifics (e.g. casting, directing) be broken into subsections...if they can support it. What I've seen is that if it's something small, then it's wrapped up on the lead production section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. I guess that's something that should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  Remember last summer when we had a lot of future film articles' Production sections broken down into subsections?  We moved on from that because it created a lot of thin paragraphs, since obviously production information on films yet to come out are slim.  For films already out, the available production information can range from comprehensive (Dreamgirls style) to slim (Friday the 13th, anyone?).  I guess it creates a structural challenge.  For example, if we have a couple of paragraphs for the film's development history, that can go under a Development subsection, but what if actual production information is too minimal to have its own subsection -- not much detail in writing, filming, visual effects, etc. to stand alone?  Obviously, we can't have another Production under Production.  Is there section re-titling that can be done to fit this kind of scenario?  Won't apply to all film articles, obviously. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you have a little bit of this and a little bit of that then you can have 1 section. It would be pretty odd to have a development section that's larger than a production section. One section is one subject and the other is multiple subjects. If there is way more development information then maybe we're using every tiny detail that was mentioned. I agree, future films should probably have either 1 production section with all the info in it, or a development and production section with the respective info filled out. For future films you will probably have more development info than production, but once it's out your production section should expand (especially with DVD special feature info). Oh..I resent that F13 comment..LOL, I've only gotten though about half of the first film in 1 book and it looks like this so far. I think I'll have plenty of info for multiple subsections. But I do get what you mean. A lot of films probably won't have a good breakdown of info that can be used in multiple subsections.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
This creeps me out a little. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, I saw your section header and knew exactly what this was going to be about. I agree, but I think he said that more to pull our legs. He seems to be itching to cause trouble, but do it in a way that he can plead ignorance.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)