Talk:Quentin Tarantino/Archive 4

Recurring actors

From here:

Q. You also use the same actors over and over again the way Bergman did. Why? Because you feel comfortable with these people?

A. I do feel comfortable with the people, but also all my favorite directors had some sort of stock company that they used again and again. These people understand your world, understand your words, understand your working method. And your fans like them, they like the familiar faces.

This reliable source establishes that Tarantino considers his recurring use of actors significant, as does the interviewer, Charles McGrath. Given this, it's consistent with WP:CSC, and therefore WP:LSC, that we can list the recurring actors in a chart, sourced to IMDB.

I'll leave this here for a bit to make sure that anyone who has objections can respond. MilesMoney (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Recurring actors redux

When I reverted this bold edit, Chocolateboy ought to have opened up a section to discuss his grievances. Instead, he edit-warred. Not good.

Since suggesting a discussion wasn't enough, I'm opening it for him, but it's still up to him to explain what his objections are and gain some consensus before messing with the article. The first revert should have been clue enough that removal was hasty and unsupported. MilesMoney (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so keen to direct me to your prior gallery-playing bleating on this topic when that's precisely what brought me here in the first place. [1][2] There's clearly no consensus to keep this cruft as it's blatantly unsourced. If reliable, third-party sources can be found, then such material can be included in a way that reflects its importance/notability. The quote mentioned above doesn't justify the current section, though it would be fine as an additional reference in — say — a paragraph mentioning the one or two actors (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson) who have been described by multiple third-party sources as notable Tarantino faves/alumni.

chocolateboy (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You lost track of the fact that the issue moved back from WP:ORN to Talk:Joss_Whedon#Frequent_casting_tweak, where it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It's been close to two months and you haven't raised any issues that haven't been dealt with already. The existence of the list is justified by the quote about Tarantino's preference for reusing actors, the items are sourced to IMDB and to the movies themselves. The whole thing falls under WP:LSC, WP:CALC, and WP:CSC. Seriously, why are you even doing this? The article is much better with the chart than without, your objections depend on a misreading of policy, and your edit-warring is tendentious. You're wasting my time. MilesMoney (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction

Not sure how you figure that:

People who have voiced (on this talk page and NORN) opposition to the inclusion of this material as it currently stands (i.e. without "multiple third-party reliable sources"):

1. Arzel
2. Binksternet
3. chocolateboy
4. Hchc2009
5. S. Rich

People who support it:

1. MilesMoney

---

the items are sourced to IMDB

Which part of this is unclear? "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."

You're wasting my time

I've made constructive suggestions above (and on the Joss Whedon talk page) for how a subset of this material might be included as long as it isn't excessive and unsourced (as it is currently). In fact, the policy you introduced to reinstate that material on the Joss Whedon article ("at least three different characters in Whedon's productions"), which you've conveniently forgotten here, was originally introduced by me. AFAICT, you've never added anything of substance to any of the articles you're disrupting beyond repeatedly prosecuting this attempt to undermine a core Wikipedia policy.

chocolateboy (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've protected them from damage, which makes me a force multiplier instead of just an adder. SO far, you seem to be a subtracter: you remove value. If you'd like to work on improving citations, you'll have my support. MilesMoney (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

you seem to be a subtracter

FWIW, I've added a fair bit to this article (and the Joss Whedon article) over the years, as can easily be verified, but, of course, I remove cruft like this which violates Wikipedia policy.

If you'd like to work on improving citations, you'll have my support.

If you're genuinely interested in improving the article (rather than flying in the face of overwhelming consensus and Wikipedia policy) then the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of this material as per WP:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

chocolateboy (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hateful Eight

I made a redirect for the new film, ready to be expanded when there's more information about the project: The Hateful Eight. — Mayast (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just added a subsection and content under the "Controversies" section covering Tarantino suing Gawker Media over the distribution of his scripts for film The Hateful Eight. I've also included why he is no longer continuing the film along with three different sources. I recommend we keep a close eye on this issue within the coming weeks because it is likely to change and the subsection will require expansion. Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Kill Bill"

The lead refers to "Kill Bill" being in the tradition of Japanese martial arts, but in the section on "Kill Bill", to being in the tradition of Chinese martial arts. Which is it? I don't know enough about the film to correct this. -- P123ct1 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have copy-edited the article and am going through the footnotes to check they are sound. Putting {{failed verification}} tags in the text would make it unsightly, so I will list them here. None of these footnotes back up the text they are appended to:-

Early Life:

7 - Monitor, "Ent. Wkly"

9 - Barr, Susan

12 - "The Man and His Movies"

13 - QT Biog. yahoo

16 - "Fresh Air from ...." Nat.Pub.Radio

18 - Clarkson, Wensley

19 - Strong, Danny

1990s

22 Fuller, Graham ISBN

23 "Outside the Box ... " USC

.--P123ct1 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

1983

In years active, it says 1983- What did he do that year? My Best Friend's Birthday started shooting in 1984, but it was released in 87? What are the rules for this years active template? It's kind of dumb. When do you decide that they are active? He was writing since he was a kid.. I dunno, but I don't think 83 is notable. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The § Filmography and critical reception and § Reception sections both list Rotten Tomatoes scores. Suggestion: either the Metacritic scores should be moved to the former, or the Rotten Tomatoes scores should be removed from the former. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

An Idea for a movie check out the book the five ring, a man who duel and has 60 killed not including kills in a war, die unbeaten @ age of 60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.51.40 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Typical brands query

The article claims

The typical brands he uses within his films are "Acuña Boys Tex-Mex Food", "Big Kahuna Burger", "G.O. Juice", "Jack Rabbit Slim's", "K-Billy", "Red Apple cigarettes", "Tenku Brand Beer" and "Teriyaki Donut".[59]

Have all of these brands appeared in more than one of his films? Also the link doesn't actually go to a verification but just a general web site. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why include this quote?

When asked in 2013 by Britain's Channel 4 News reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "Why are you so sure that there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence?", Tarantino responded by saying, "I have explained [my view on this] many times over the last 20 years, I just refuse to repeat myself over and over again."[65]

It seems like this tells us very little about his opinions, just that someone asked him the same question he had been previously asked. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

repertory company?

more like: how to blow up this article. by the way, the lovely Ms. Bell has collaborated only three times as an actress, bill and basterds was stunt work. hey, why not be creative, count the bill features as two films and blow up the article even more, make it six times actress…

His eighth film, The Hateful Eight ?

In the introduction you can read

His eighth film, the mystery Western The Hateful Eight

. Tarantino actually calls it its eighth movie, but is it a reason to objectively consider it as such ? If you consider Kill Bill as two distinct movies, Hateful Eight is the ninth.

Elfast (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Our coverage should boil down to what reliable third party sources determine to be his eighth film, not any attempt at objectivity. ‑‑Yodin^T 15:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quentin Tarantino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100304205043/http://www.charlierose.com:80/view/interview/10567 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10567

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)