User talk:TheRealEverton

Remake
Hello. Regarding your additions to the article on remakes, please note that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia only deals in verified facts. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello back. The film section of remake was full of opinion and little fact, I updated it with solid facts and if you have any of my changes that you feel need verifying point them out and I will happily do so. Thanks. (talk) TheRealEverton (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) TheRealEverton

Addendum I'm not sure what part of the edit you think were opinion and not verified? Much of the existing film section was nothing but opinion, worse than that it was opinion that is actually counter to established facts. Also it's primary source, an article on Latino review, is itself conjecture ~AND worse still it is plainly erroneous; using sided by side pictures form Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory and Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, despite it being plainly established that Charlie is not a remake of Wonka and in fact is legally incapable of being so, owing to Roald Dahl's hatred of the first film and it being legally established that the Dahl family would not and never will, allow any association with the Wonka film. The assumption that the Karate Kid (2010) is also either not critically approved or liked by the public, or both, is also opinion disproved by fact. Firstly by the $359m gross of the film (and the nature of the gross, slowly over a number of weeks, as opposed to 50% or more of the gross in the opening week(end). ) The Film received a Cinemascore of A. Public reaction can also be seen as mostly positive on various other, established sites, like Boxofficemojo.com, Yahoo movies B+, Rotten Tomatoes 75%, and even the IMDB where it’s 6.2 score increases significantly when those old enough to have seen the original when it was first released in cinemas and on video / TV are removed. You can also see that significantly more people enjoyed the film (rated it 7 or higher), than did not (rated it 4 or lower) 18,000+ VS just over 5,500. This type of result is repeated wherever you canvas unbiased opinion. It also has to be remembered that the film faced stiff competition around the globe from films like Shrek 4, Toy Story 3 and The A-Team (although that film was soundly beaten away). You should also the sales on DVD and Blu-Ray and the fact that the film made more than enough to get a sequel commissioned. It’s also worth noting that the film did receive generally favourable reviews and many of those that praised the film suggested it was probably better than the original. (There are plenty of examples, not least from the UK’s Sun and Daily Mirror (It’s 2 best selling, although by no means highest quality, newspapers.)

TheRealEverton (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those additions have introduced uncited and unverified statements such as:"The public also find many remakes to be superior, although this can often depend upon there being no emotional attachment to the original (often the modern audience isn’t even aware they are watching a remake; this is especially the case with remakes of foreign language films, such as The Departed (Infernal Affairs), A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop (Blood Simple) or even Wo Zhi Nu Run Xin (What Women Want)." and "It should be noted that the sequels to both The Addams Family and Scooby Doo movies were much less successful than the initial movies, despite, ironically, both having a much better critical reception than the first films received." These statements constitute original research and essay-like content. They also represent points of view.


 * Most of the passages such as the one discussing the Karate Kid remake at length and the paragraph about remakes of foreign film read like an essay, an in-depth discussion of a point of view, not encyclopedia content. This is true for most of the article (see the tags on top of it), so it already needs cleaning up as it is. If you have any further questions, please feel free to post on the Talk:Remake page. You may also find additional assistance regarding film-related contributions at WikiProject film. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It would seem my mistake is that I have been editing the article on its own terms, correcting mistakes etc; whereas the article is not only factually erroneous, but not written in the correct manner for Wikipedia? As you state the article already contains almost nothing but opinion and if that is your criteria it should be removed as it is giving out false information. I used Karate Kid as an example of how remakes can be successful and received differently by differing age groups. IF that isn't acceptable, as I have shown you verification for each and every point made about Karate Kid, then the whole Remake section should be purely factual.
 * i.e.
 * ' A movie remake is a film that is based on, or adapted from, the script or story of an already existing movie. It this dependence on the source material that makes films like "The Magnificent Seven" or "The Karate Kid (2010)" remakes (Of Seven Samurai & The Karate Kid (1984)officially remakes; whilst films like "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory", "True Grit" (2010) and "William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet" (1995)are not remakes, merely fresh adaptations of original works, two novels and a play."


 * There can be grey areas. Films like John Carpenter's "The Thing" are essentially new adaptations of the source material, in this case the Novella "Who Goes There", but in using the title, Font and other elements from the 1950s film "The Thing", the film becomes a Hybrid and thus effectively a remake.


 * Television shows have long since been adapted into movies, but it is not correct to call these remakes as they have transcended media, even if it is a similar media.'


 * That should be it, because anything else simply leads to what you describe as "essay". It is short, but factual and without fat. I could however provide links and verification for almost everything I have written about in my previous edit. Some of it you have seen, regarding Karate Kid, and there is certainly plenty to support box office and critical reactions in any case that I have mentioned, for any film that I have used as an example. There is also plenty I can link to with regards to this '"The public also find many remakes to be superior, although this can often depend upon there being no emotional attachment to the original '


 * In fact the only part of my edit that i don't have verification for is my statement about many people often not being aware a film was a remake in the first place. I am happy to remove the previous film entry entirely, for the reasons you state (as currently people are being woefully misinformed and place verification links (box office grosses, critical opinion as stats and / or singular, quality comments. articles in major publications / website etc) IF there are any that I cannot do that with i will omit them, but I'm pretty sure that will be only 1 or 2 at most.


 * Or I can simply add the requisite links to the brief description above, which is brief, to the point and wholly factual.

TheRealEverton (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)