Talk:The Big Parade

Contradict

This line: "The film is the highest grossing silent film in cinema history, taking in $22 million at the box office." contradicts silent film, which states it only took in 6.4 * 10^6 USD. 68.39.174.238 07:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that both answers are true. According to IMDB, this movie grossed 5 million in USA by 1936 and 22 million worldwide by 1985. But at silent film, it should be better stated what exactly the numbers mean and where do they come from. Samohyl Jan 17:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times of July 22, 1934 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3091EFC395D13728DDDAB0A94DF405B848FF1D3), citing the 1934-1934 Motion Picture Almanac, states that the gross at that time was $3,500,000. However, Alice Lawrence Behn Goebel, wife of Harry Behn, recalls that "... The Big Parade broke all money making records up to that time ..." ("Rememberings", 1983[?]).

Lede complaint section. Please address your problems here.

Post complaints here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Such&Such (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You recently introduced new content into the article, but unfortunately did it in such a way that violated several MOS:FILM guidelines and left the article in an inferior state. I addressed the problems by attempting to merge the two versions but you subsequently restored your preferred version. I will outline the problems here:

1. The structure of the lead is problematic. It is not necessary to create four paragraphs out of four sentences. Indeed, this goes against MOS:PARA.
2. WP:FILMLEAD states that the genre should be identified in conjunction with WP:WEIGHT. In other words we shouldn't be cherry-picking genres. The British Film Institute classifies the film as "war", while both the American Film Institute and Allmovie classify the film as a "war drama". The film is not principally classifed as a "war romance" film. This view is WP:Original research (the source provided does not even corroborate the claim, observing that the film contains romance and comedy—not the same thing!).
3. You have also removed the basic plot premise from the lead. It is common to outline the basic plot in one or two sentences in the plot. MOS:FILM states the following: "In terms of plot, it is sufficient to merely include the general premise of the film in the lead section and identify actors' roles in the premise." If you want to see an example of a well-written lead then take a look at The Godfather.
4. The source you provided does not corroborate the film is based on a "war memoir". Laurence Stallings was a WWI veteran and had written a play. King Vidor asked him to write the plot for the film after seeing the play. He undoubtedly drew on his own experiences, but the new version of the lead misrepresents this.
5. You have persisted in introducing sensationalist journalist tropes into the article. This essentially just repeats what is already included in the article. The final sentence of the "Legacy" section discusses the impact on Vidor's career, it is unnecessary and unencyclopedic to state he became a "overnight success".
6. Most of the sources you keep adding are not actually used to source claims in the article. The bulk of them are just random titles that are not referenced at all in the body of the article. This is not what the "References" section is for. The sources that are used in the article body (such as Phillips and Reinhardt) are already listed under the footnotes section in conjunction with the claims they corroborate.

I hope this makes it clear why I have reverted the alterations. If you disagree then please discuss here rather than just reverting to a problematic version of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I never "just [started] reverting", but you did. I am making major improvements to an article that involves a proprietary interest on someone's part. The article has languished for years, and reads like a stub.

As to the paragraphs in the lede, please feel free to make adjustments, but not to content. The sources and citations are improvements, and excellently sourced.

As to "war-romance" vs. "drama", well, critics of the film, including J. Baxter places strong emphasis on the romance aspect. If that is not suitable, make that minor change yourself, if you wish.

As to Stallings, my clarification "misrepresents" nothing, but an effort to simply to note that Stallings was a veteran of WWI combat. No violation here.

"Overnight success": is you find that "trope" objectionable, please use synonyms that suit you. I did not lift it from Rotten Tomatoes, I assure you. Kevin Brownlow or John Baxter, yes.

What are these "random titles that are not referenced at all in the body of the article." All of my citations and sources are precisely drawn secondary sources. That's why nothing I've added is "opinion". Your complaint is not clear. Examples?

As to the matter of References/Footnotes/Sources, please refer to the structure used at Emily Dickinson. That format could be use here, if you think it will make things clearer.

My edits represent an improvement the article, and are long overdue. Kindly refrain from making wholesale deletions of my contributions.

Thank you for your interest. Lord Such&Such (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You added some useful content to the article, but some of your edits did not improve the article and went against the guidance at MOS:FILM which regulates article development. Moreover, some of your sources did not corroborate the various claims in the article:

• The sources you added invariably described it as a "romantic vehicle" and as having its "fair share of romance and comedy". Lots of films have romance and comedy in them, but that does not make them romance films or comedies. Genres as a rule do not generally have to be sourced (unless they are being challenged) because they can often be found through the external links at the bottom of the article.
• Stallings' status as a veteran is already clear in the lead. However, the claim that the film is "based on a war memoir" is not corroborated by the source you provided.
• Synonyms for "overnight success" are not needed, because the article already states that "the film's tremendous success established Vidor as one of MGM's top directors" in the same section.
• The Baxter (1970), Brownlow and Koszarski sources are not used to corroborate any of the claims in the article, and therefore have no reason to be listed. The Phillips and Reinhardt sources are listed under "Footnotes" and do not need to to be duplicated.
• As for the referencing system, Emily_Dickinson#Notes uses the short footnote system, and this article could be conditioned likewise, if necessary. However, the short footnote system is only generally utilised for sources that are used multiple times for repeated references and there is no need to use them for sources that are referenced for just a single claim.

I agree that the article is not in a good state and would benefit from some development. I am happy to assist you in that process but the article should observe the framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lord Such&Such (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Genre

I have restored the original genre "War drama film" to the lead in preference over the recent change to "romantic war film". I have also added sources to that effect. WP:FILMLEAD states that the lead should give the primary genre or sub-genre under which the film is verifiably classified, in accordance to WP:WEIGHT. Both American Film Institute and Allmovie explicitly give the genre as "war drama". The British Film Institute simply scales it back to "war". Both the AFI and and BFI are considered fairly authoritative, and neither regard the film as "romance".

The alternative sources that were added (The Museum of Modern Art and World Socialist Website) do not corroborate romance as a genre. The Museum of Modern Art describes it as "at once a grand epic, an intimate romance, a comedy of camaraderie, and a savage polemic" while the World Socialist Website simply describes it as having "its fair share of romance and comedy"; neither of these descriptors even mention it is a war film. A film can contain elements of comedy and romance without being exponents of those genres. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You are making and labouring a WP:POINT. Anyone who has seen the film will tell you that it is a romance, otherwise why is Melisande such a prominent and enduring character? It is also an epic – mainly because of the actual parade itself – and, as you do admit, it's a war movie. If all AFI can do is apply "drama" to their genre parameters, then it is not a reliable site. Of course the film is a drama – it isn't a documentary or a news report or a travelogue or whatever. All films and plays which employ role-playing actors are dramas. Do you honestly think you are helping the readers by saying the film is a war drama or should you not be telling them it is an epic war romance with elements of comedy and family conflict? Don't bother to reply. I've better things to do. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 05:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Going by the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28#Category:War_drama_films you are clearly biased against the genre in general. I think readers are best served by Wikipedia categorizing the film in the genres that most of the authoritative sources do. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)