# Talk:Escape from Tomorrow

I am not involved in any of the noted WikiProjects, but how is such a comprehensive, well organized, well-sourced article only listed as a "Start" class?  78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It was assessed shortly after I began the article, and hasn't been revisited since. Thanks for the compliment! Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that happens, and I've written articles that were assessed early on, way before I was finished, and I wish would be re-assessed (although I'm hoping for a "C" on mine, this deserves higher in my oh-so-humble opinion).  I guess I am formally requesting that a member of said WikiProjects re-assess this article, because it truly deserves it.  78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When it happens, it happens. I don't worry about these things.I am thinking of listing it for peer review after this Main Page turn (and after the news dies down; unless Disney decides to take legal action which of course would change things). Then I would nominate it for GA, which would change the assessment if it passes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Smart thinking.  If Disney reacts, you'll be busy!  Anyway, kudos for a superb job.  I thought this was one of the most informative, readable articles I've seen in a long time. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Daniel, I've re-assessed this article based on your expansion, and it's excellent work! Like the IP user, I also enjoyed reading about the topic; I had no idea about this. I've assessed the article as B-class, and I think you will be just fine for a GA assessment. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again! However, before GA I always like to print the article out, go through it with a red pen, and then after implementing the copy edit take it to PR. Doesn't hurt to have had a few other eyes on it before the ones that count. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Escape from Tomorrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I've been interested in this film ever since reading the /film and NYT articles about it, so I'm glad to see somebody's developed this into a quality article. Thanks for investing the time on this one. The article is well-sourced and well-written, and does a good job guiding the reader through a quite offbeat film and legal tangle. It's clearly ripe for promotion.
I made a few copyedits as I went for style and grammar; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. A few small additional points that I'd like your thoughts on:

" he takes his daughters to the rides " -- below, Jim is described as a "father of two", so how does he have a son and multiple daughters?
 Done This is probably the result of relying on reviews that aren't primarily devoted to summarizing the plot. It seems clearer now that he has only the one daughter ... I think I was confusing the daughter with the French girls. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"White's son, working with a wheelchair-bound man, makes attempts on his life"-- who is the "his" here-- the wheelchair-bound man? White?
 Done I think this was an artifact of recasting the sentence at some point when the pronoun alone wouldn't do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"and interrogated about this" -- is the "this" here the cat flu?
 Done Made this clearer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"At the end of the film he dies at the Contemporary Resort Hotel" -- is this the same hotel his family is staying at?
I'm not sure. The reviews did not make clear where they were staying. I sort of got the impression from them and that clip of the French girls that's been shown online that they were at the Polynesian Resort (I've stayed there, albeit many years ago, and that looks like the pool there). But I don't feel comfortable saying that in the article yet. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done Not a problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an action point, but I just had to say that "The scene where a Disney Princess attempts to crush a child seems to eliminate that possibility" may be the best sentence I've read in 100+ reviews.
Sorry I've been sort of AWOL on this for a few days ... it was a busy holiday weekend.Thanks ... other people made this same comment about the original post as well. I knew I had to work it in there somehow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
That said, four paragraphs may be excessive length for Tim Wu's blog post (even if it's the New Yorker blog). Is there any way this bit can be shortened? It feels a bit unbalanced next to the one sentence of Sciretta, who's much more down on the film's legal situation. Admittedly, Wu's by far the more important authority here, but it's still quite a lot of his opinion.
Probably from my work at WP:SCOTUS, I tend to think that we should try to explain legal issues at a little bit greater length than the demands of mere brevity and succinctness would otherwise dictate. They are not only vulnerable to misunderstanding from the public—the consequences of such misunderstandings can be unfortunate.I quoted Sciretta on the one issue he raised that Wu didn't. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense; the legal issues are the biggest aspect of the film's coverage so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"At Slate, Aisha Harris admitted this was a possibility," -- "admitted" makes her sound a bit grudging/guilty about it. What about simply "agreed"? Or better yet, "also raised this issue", since she's not responding directly to /film?
I will change this to "allowed that", since I think that's the best characterization of what she said. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"they have the perfect in-house strategy to achieve that. Just hand the film over to the John Carter marketing team. The film will open in 3,000 theatres and no one will see it." -- this is a good dig at Disney, but the joke seems off-topic and a bit unencyclopedic; it doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding of the main subject. What would you think about cutting it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right. It's a great quote; until I added Moore's final word it was a great way to let people out of the article. But deep down I wondered if someone else would necessarily agree; and if you don't, you're probably not the only one. So I am cutting it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist
The plot summary for this movie is wrong. Unless there are multiple versions of this movie where the scenes are moved around or something, this very badly needs to be fixed. However, since this is currently a good rated article, I'm reluctant to make the changes. KatCheez 01:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and and do it, if you've seen it. I put that together from what I could glean in the articles about it that ran in January and February when it was at Sundance, since it was unclear at the time if anyone outside that festival would ever actually see it. Now, that's not so.And don't let the rating on the article stop you from making a change if you feel it's an improvement. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I radically rewrote the plot summary to correct the mistakes. It could use some tidying/trimming and, if you have seen the movie, you know that there are some scenes which are not completely clear. I believe that it is substantially correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.139.67 (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks good now ... all this article needs then is a digest of the reviews (which generally have been lukewarm at best). Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says "The film cuts to another unnoticed scene involving the young Jim from the opening as he tortures a stray cat in the middle of a field somewhere outside New York City, revealing that he has transversed across the US. Then cuts to a different sequence with his childhood friend Tom, getting drunk in an abandoned junkyard outside an Oklahoma suburb, which is now vandalized. The two scenes end as the boys take a ride on their bikes into a bleak and vast landscape. One of them discuss about his first-time trip to Disney World with his father and another one who is now discussing about his morbid fantasy of murdering his abusive and alcoholic stepfather. The film ends with young Jim and Tom destroying everything in the same junkyard, from the eariler scene with a drunk Tom, in the rain."  I just finished watching the movie on Netflix, and none of those scenes were in it. Was the film edited down? Metamatic (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For all I know, yes. (I still haven't had a chance to see it myself). Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) thinks that he is a "consensus" and that man-child Tony Goldmark - a Disney fan boy with almost no YouTube subscribers and a huge conflict of interest - is as important as the LA Times and the New York Post.  Bravo, Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.224.162 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 

OK, I guess I'm going to have to protect this talk page too, since as the original section hed for this further demonstrates, you have shown no interest whatsoever in discussing this within Wikipedia policies of civility and no personal attacks, instead choosing to edit war relentlessly with sock puppets.I claim consensus for including Goldmark's review based on myself and TMobias's observation at your talk page that Goldmark wrote his review for a notable site—therefore it can be in this article. Instead of discussing this, you have just tried to impose your will on this page, and insulted willy-nilly like a little child when you didn't get your way. I'm not bothering to leave the page unprotected for you to reply because I've lost all faith in you; thus it would serve no purpose. Don't let the door hit you anywhere on your way out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Goldmark's "review" was first posted by (User:174.125.147.22) a sock puppet of TMobias  - who hasn't used his wiki account for any other other purpose than to defend his original post.  So to claim a consensus based on that is just... retarded.  TMobias is also a "friend" of Goldmark's - how do we know this?  Because he notified him within hours of the post being edited and brought him out of the woodwork to post a response on HIS talk page - (TMobias|talk).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.224.162 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 

It's certainly an oddly large amount of space to devote to Goldmark, regardless of whether his opinion belongs on the page or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.234.80 (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I know that this subject had come up in the past, but I thought I might bring this up anyway. I've made some edits to this page before, and I never thought too much one way or the other about the inclusion of Goldmark's review (I've even made some edits to improve the description of it.) But I've been thinking about it for a while, and I don't think it should be included;
First off, in his three-part review, Goldmark isn't playing himself, he is playing a character (called the "jerk") In the finale of part three, the actor that Goldmark is speaking with even addresses him as "jerk" and reference is made to the story-arc that got him to review the film in the first place. During the review Goldmark is pretty much in-character the whole time. His characters' opinions may be based on his real ones, but they are still exaggerated. 
Second, Wikipedia movie articles don't usually include YouTube comedy reviews from "Channel Awesome" (or any YouTube review in general). Goldmark has also produced a three-part comical review of The Haunted Mansion for instance, but it is not included in that film's Wikipedia article. So why is his Escape from Tomorrow review so important that it needs to be noted in the reception section of this article? On top of that, there have been several reviews of this film on YouTube (and millions of film reviews in general). YouTube reviews (especially satirical reviews from "Channel Awesome") are generally not necessary or important enough to be included in Wikipedia film articles.
Three, when Goldmark's review was first added to the page (I don't recall which editor it was), the article text initially included an external link to the website "Some Jerk With a Camera" which is rather inappropriate and unnecessary to include within the article text. Which makes me question if an editor just wanted to give a shout-out and advertise the website within the article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I actually agree with Goldmark's review. But whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I believe that it is not appropriate to include notes from a "Channel Awesome" review in this article.  If nothing else, I don't think that Goldmark's review needs to have so much space dedicated to it. Any thoughts? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor12: OK, now this is the right way to go about doing this. I refused to discuss it before because of Owlfarm88 and his socks ... he seemed to have some personal loathing for Goldmark and no other justification for the edit.I didn't actually add this review myself when I created the article ... someone else did later on. Maybe it was Goldmark or some sock of his; at this point I don't know and don't care. Since I wasn't familiar with the site but noted that it was notable enough for an article to have been started and kept on, I felt a review posted there could stay.Since it is responding directly to another review we quoted here, I also thought it relevant as well.I do agree, however, that maybe I quoted too much ... I've noticed that at GAN the trend has been towards more paraphrasing and less direct quoting, I don't know why, probably because one nominator too many was submitting articles that were largely quote salad, and they wanted encourage more writing and less copyright-troublesome collaging.Also, the disclosure that Goldmark's review may be as much a performance as an actual review has led me to reconsider it some more. Daniel Case (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I appreciate you offering your thoughts. I apologize that I did not get back to you sooner. Until a determination is made if the entire thing should be deleted or not. I'm going to try and shorten it a bit.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed the recent article history. I think it's time to seek some additional feedback on this subject; @SummerPhDv2.0. - Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I can only guess why I was called into this.
For the moment I'll just say that we have had past instances of fictional NASA personnel pointing out inaccuracies in Gravity, fictional commentators editorializing on politicians and yes, lots of fictional reviewers of films (and video games).
These are not what the characters purport them to be. We would not, for instance, report medical advice from a doctor on The Simpsons as if it were a doctor giving medical advice. Instead, this type of material is effectively "In popular culture" material. Imaginary characters on The Critic or Men on Film and similar have their imaginary opinions. The only time we would have something to say about them is if independent reliable sources discussing the film discuss them. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0: As far as I can tell, Goldmark is his own name and I am not sure the review segments are clearly marked as performance (really, to some extent every critic who reviews films on TV or Internet video is playing a character), the way Men on Film was. A question in settling this would be, are excerpts of his reviews used in blurbs to promote films? If they are, then it suggests that film marketers believe viewers take them seriously. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0: Thank you for providing your thoughts here. I've seen your edits on various articles that I have also given attention to, so I was familiar with the fact that you know a lot about policy, and I knew that your feedback would add some value. After seeing the back and forth in this article's edit history, I felt it would be a good idea to stimulate discussion again. Personally, I am ultimately fine with any outcome to this subject. In answer to the recent question though, I personally have never seen blurbs from Golmark's reviews used to promote a film. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTCt

If Goldmark's remarks are used as blurb it would show the marketing folks thought it would look good on a poster, nothing more. Posters have been known to include blurbs from fictional reviewers created for the poster.
Our articles repeatedly describe That Guy with the Glasses/Nostalgia Critic/Bum Reviews/Some Jerk With a Camera/etc. as satire. Satirical movie reviews are not movie reviews much as "Weekend Update" and The Onion not news. Goldmark is focused on mocking films and critics not reviewing them. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
After the latest (interestingly coincidental) attempt to remove it by a possible Owlfarm88 sock whom I've blocked for this (the other edits weren't terribly constructive anyway), I took the trouble of removing this myself. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
How many can agree that the film isn't "postmodern" as Kyle Kallgren explained in Tony's vid. Espngeek (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Escape from Tomorrow. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130410142249/http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_22409760/escape-takes-audience-horror-filled-roller-coaster-ride to http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_22409760/escape-takes-audience-horror-filled-roller-coaster-ride
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123060637/http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/review-escape-from-tomorrow-is-a-surrealist-treat-that-will-give-disneys-lawyers-nightmares to http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/review-escape-from-tomorrow-is-a-surrealist-treat-that-will-give-disneys-lawyers-nightmares
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/sundance_review_escape_from_tomorrow
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from Tony Goldmark's, some are pretty negative: Jenny Nicholson, Animat and The Disney Project Podcast.
I think some critics want it to be an anti-Dis masterpiece or a legit criticism of WD, but it's a film with unlikeable characters and bad controversy. Espngeek (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)