Talk:The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

message: Please allow reasonable time to compile content for this article.  I seem to be the only person working on it and I only have access to the internet for short periods of time.   I invite others to share information, ideas and content to flesh out this subject. LEX LETHAL 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the article using available citations.  Should be pretty up-to-date in the reliable sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Content

message: someone changed "heath ledger" to "zombie heath ledger" in the sidebar.  it directs to the article on zombies, rather than the article on heath ledger.  someone should prolly fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.98 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, it is not known if he was in the "midst" of filming. The CBS 2 article only cites an anchor at WCBS who stated that based on the fact that the movie was currently in production. No statement has been made regarding whether he had begun filming his scenes, whether he had completed them, or if he was actually in the "midst" of filming. Given that production is in London, is moving to Canada, and he was found in Manhatten indicates that he probably was not involved in the current location shooting.--Ahecht (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  "He... was in the midst of filming The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus."  It's speculative to say outside of the independent source how much he did, if at all.  Traveling isn't difficult these days. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This shows he had been in London the weekend before.  No indication of how far long his scenes were, as he was apparently not a primary character (at least in the premise). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now sources which reckon he was filming in London at the time    Pretty Green (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is mention of his death at the end. However the film could theoretically still star him, if he had shot lots of footage, and the producers decide to keep it. Terry Gilliam has rotten luck getting films finished. It's surprising that the IMDB doesn't list Ledger's character name or role. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the 'Depp' discussion section further down this page Ged UK (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heath Ledger

message: Saying that this film is "upcoming" implies and assumes far more than "unfinished" does.  Is the film finished?  No, it is not; that's a verifiable fact.  Is it coming up?  I don't know; my crystal ball isn't working.  It's bad enough that WP puts predictions like this on films where the odds are in favor of them being true.  I don't think we should put such a prediction on a film whose future is this cloudy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know either way about how Ledger's death affects the film.  I can't think of any in-between wording, since production has been disrupted, but we don't know if it's temporarily or permanently or some degree in between.  You're right, "Upcoming" would not be quite accurate, but the problem is, we can't argue anything other than our opinions -- will it be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote or The Crow?  Obviously, we should keep an eye out for reliable sources to see what kind of track this project is on. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "We don't know either way... " That's my point.  The "in-between wording" you're looking for is... unfinished.  It lies between one prediction (canceled) and the opposite prediction (upcoming).  You seem to think I'm offering an opinion of what will happen, with that adjective, but I'm not.  I'm just saying that the film is not finished... maybe it will be, maybe it won't be.  Anything more hopeful and optimistic than that is NPOV, just anything that said it was probably canceled would be.  And there's plenty of clarification in the article itself for those who are unclear about what unfinished means. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the word "unfinished" is that it's a permanent phrase.  Look at The Man Who Killed Don Quixote -- it was never finished, and hence, it's called unfinished.  Both of our preferences can be seen at opposite ends -- "will be coming out" and "won't be coming out".  This is a really dynamic situation because we're caught in an activity that doesn't happen often, and there's no slap-on label for it.  I'll stick with "unfinished" for now, and hopefully we can get word soon enough from filmmakers about how they'll proceed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserting one word and moving some others might do the trick. How about something along the lines of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an American fantasy-adventure film production, directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam and screenwriter Charles McKeown. In January 2008, the death of Heath Ledger, whose presence had been vital to the film's financing, disrupted production of the film. The Imaginarium has been cast with [yada-yada]..." It tells the truth, it's non-speculative and doesn't give any misleading impressions either way. It might be a tiny bit clumsy, but it's not as if it'll be there for long; word will surely come out soon as to whether production will restart. If production is halted permanently, the article content will likely end up at the Gilliam page anyway. Steve T  • C 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Unfinished is no more permanent than undiscovered or unread is.  Today's "unread book" could easily be tomorrow's "read book".  Unfinished makes no predictions; it asserts no Point Of View.  Likewise, I never said that this film "won't be coming out"; I only said that there's enough chance of that to make the prediction embodied by upcoming inappropriate.  I want the article to be completely noncommittal.   An "unfinished" work is a work that has not been finished.  And this movie has not been finished. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the definitions available.  In the context of films, an "unfinished film" falls in the category of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and other films in being that production did not go all the way through.  That's why I have an issue with that word choice, but like I said, I'll wait for more information about how production will continue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After my previous comment, I checked again for headlines.  Production has been indefinitely suspended, so I now agree that "unfinished" fits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although production has been suspended, People is reporting that Gilliam is still working to continue the film. No decision has been made on whether to recast or scrap the film (even according to the original "indefinitely suspended" articly"--Ahecht (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming 

message: How about using this picture of Heath Ledger on the Parnassus set or this production drawing taken from Gilliam's fanzine?. I think they could both be fair use, thoughts?.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: I've never seen a Cast section use parentheses to detail the actors and their roles.  It's either been Actor as Role or written out as prose as WP:MOSFILM encourages.  I don't believe that any of the film articles in the spotlight have used parentheses.  Perhaps this is confused with using parentheses within the Plot section to identify the actor behind each role? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: E.g., Why is there no "was" ("was cast") in the last two cast member's listings? The verb tenses need some kind of clearer revision; this is very awkward.  All of the cast members were selected in the past; what is the distinction between "was cast" and "cast"?  Even if Heath Ledger is dead and is removed from the film entirely if the film is made without his footage in it, it would still be a fact that he "had been cast" in the film--whether he appears in it or not.  Please find some better (less confusing) way to present the (current) cast list.  The cast has not yet changed, despite Ledger's death. --NYScholar (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: The "news" about the signing of Deep, Law & Farrell is sourced solely to Ain't It Cool News, a notoriously unreliable rumor and gossip website. (The other source cited, mtv.com, merely quotes AICN). It should probably go until better sources report this. Mike R (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC are reporting it too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7250685.stm no reference there to AIC. Ged UK (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ain't It Cool News probably not a reliable source 

message: *Heath Ledger's final movie a tough sell, August 15, 2008
Citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The item of Ledger dying and being replaced by several different actors is used more or less the same way three separate  times here. Can this be edited in a better way? CFLeon (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have to consider that the article will continue to grow.  For this film, its major coverage so far has been how Ledger's death has affected its production.  There will always be a little bit of redundancy especially with cast and production being interdependent and the lead section covering the overall content.  When the article is fleshed out, the redundancy will be less noticeable when we have more information about each cast member for the Cast section and more information about production design and visual effects for the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary Repetitions

message: The Italian version of this article gives as precise a release date for Italy (!) as March 2009, and even a translated Italian title yet: Parnassus - L'uomo che voleva ingannare il diavolo. Is the film really as close to release as Watchmen is? --77.185.11.174 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  March? 

message: Guys it pass June 6.... So that's not the real theatrical release its just a announced  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.140.139 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have removed it. If there is a new projected release date from a reliable source, it would be good to include. -kotra (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB now states a Dec 25 release in the US. link - - Steve3849 talk 07:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: It's past June 6

message: I have edited the following paragraph to take out the reference to god:
:"In the present day, immortal 1,000-year-old Doctor Parnassus (considered by some to be a human alter ego of God)[5]"
I don't feel this is supported by the source (Aintitcool: Quint calls THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS unadulterated Terry Gilliam!), which merely states:
:"Parnassus himself is played by Christopher Plummer who is just awesome in the movie. Parnassus is essentially God with a gambling problem. He can’t keep from making bets with Mr. Nick, Tom Waits’ devil in a bowler hat and that leads to the dilemma of the movie."
I believe the author is speaking metaphorically, not stating that he literally considers Parnassus an alter ego of god.
Reidlophile (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You would seem to be correct.  Having seen this now, I realize that the claim is not substantiated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  God 

message: In Italy, according to Box Office Mojo Parnassus even outdid Michael Jackson's This is it, allthroughout the run of Jackson's film it scored lower than Parnassus, and at the end of its run on November 15th Parnassus is still going strong (as in, not being dropped by theaters) and has grossed about twice as much. Might this be noticeable, regarding the fact that This is it was much more visible in the media, a much bigger production, and most people obviously thought it'd rather be the other way around? For instance, by the time Parnassus was brought up on the "expert forums" at Box Office Mojo some time this summer, it was virtually unknown, while people there at the same time were trying to predict whether This is it would gross above or below $200 million worldwide. Even now, the people at Box Office Mojo predict only "about $30-$50 million worldwide" (as in, including US domestic) for Parnassus, while the latest figures (dating November 22nd for Italy and France, November 15th for Spain, November 8th for NZ, and November 1st for the UK) for Europe alone (excluding all Australian grosses, where I heard it's going strong as well due to Ledger's nationality) add up to $17 million already. --79.193.75.125 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to ''[[Michael Jackson's This Is It|This is it]]'' 

message: Just a note, the figures from Box Office Mojo for this film are not showing this weekends returns from Canadian theatres, where this film received a much expanded release.
Box Office Mojo shows the film opened last weekend in 10 theatres in Toronto, ON alone. I have no idea what the total number of Canadian theatres was, but a search shows at least one opening in pretty much every major Canadian city.
Canadian results usually are included in the domestic figures for films on Mojo.  I confirmed that they are not going into the foreign results this time.
Anyway, someone may want to make a note in the article that not only are the Mojo figures still an estimate, but a very incomplete estimate including only the same four US theatres.  Kid Bugs (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office Mojo figures way off 

message: I removed the phrase suggesting that the film is "being considered" for Academy Awards for picture, director, actor, etc. There was no citation, and the Oscar noms have not been announced yet (Jan 2010). Are there verifiable sources for these other awards (other than makeup)? I'm open to discussion. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Award(s) 

message: The plot should contain the plot, not a summary of the whole movie. It would really ruin the movie for those who haven't already seen it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milo83 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately for the young and less experienced, WP can and will include complete plot summaries for all notable books, movies, plays, operas, tv shows/episodes. if you think about it, this is required for an encyclopedia. thus, "rosebud was his sled", "tony perkins is his own mother", "the slipper fits" will by necessity ruin endings for people not familiar with the stories. if a movie or play is less notable, a stub article may have a really brief plot summary, but if the ending is highly notable, it will include that as well. the solution is to not read WP articles, particularly any section called "story", "plot", "plot summary", or "synopsis" on movies/books you havent experienced yet. i dont. this is not a movie review site, but a compendium of knowledge, including revealed secrets.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

text: While you don't specifically indicate what you consider to be spoilers, per WP:FILMPLOT the plot summary -should- cover the main points of the film, and if that includes spoiler material, so be it. Plot summaries -should mention that Rosebud is the sled, that Vader is Luke's father, etc., because those are primary points of the films in which they occur. If you're worried about spoilers, don't read the WP articles about films you don't want to be spoiled on. This is discussed in WP:SPOILER. Doniago (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Really? May I ask where in WP policies or guidelines you're getting the idea that WP plot summaries shouldn't spoil the film? Because everything I can find seems to indicate you should expect spoilers when reading WP plot summaries. Doniago (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: After the end credits, Tony's ringtone is heard playing many times. This seems to indicate he might still be alive, or at the very least someone is trying to contact him. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Many people miss it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.37.155 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Credits 

message: I'd like to hear from other editors on whether it's appropriate to include a navbox for one actress who has a minor role in the film. I'm concerned that this might constitute undue weight, and it doesn't seem to improve the quality of the article in my opinion. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not appropriate per MOS:FILM#Navigation: "WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role prominence." I've removed the template from here and the other film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: About what I figured. Thanks for the MOS link! Doniago (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox for one actor? 

message: * Technically, this is a posthumous film from Heath Ledger, is it not? Stolengood (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Posthumous film" 

message: 19-April-2011: I expanded the plot with some brief description of the "pastel-colored dream-world of giant high-heel shoes, bejeweled eggs and floating lily pads". If people cannot see the film, they need some of these details to understand events inside the mirror. Meanwhile, per WP:FILMPLOT, I condensed 125 simple words by shortening prepositional phrases, or leaving out obvious repetition of where people were located. More could be done; however, I think this film is a case where the plot should be more than 800 words. This film seems like a highly complex story which requires a long plot to sort through the events. There are 6 main characters, and 9 others to enter the Imaginarium, which itself takes a while to describe. More obvious phrases could be shortened, but I would add more about illogical events inside the mirror and the charity for multi-cultural children, as for what type of charity. Perhaps try to keep the Plot section within 1,000 words, which I left as 795 words. -Wikid77 08:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My -personal- guideline (i.e., when I'll get actively involved) is 1K. If we're really only 95 words over I'd wonder whether it would be possible to trim further, but I'm not going to make an issue of it. That's not a comment on whether other editors might be correct to do so. Doniago (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded plot and condensed minor words

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100110065326/http://www.ifmagazine.com:80/feature.asp?article=3671 to http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3671
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724202213/http://www.fadedyouthblog.com/26106/heaths-final-movie-is-under-way to http://www.fadedyouthblog.com/26106/heaths-final-movie-is-under-way
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091201064425/http://www.pressacademy.com:80/satawards/awards2009.shtml to http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2009.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120515012158/http://www.empireonline.com/awards2010/vote/ to http://www.empireonline.com/awards2010/vote/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091226191557/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091020/lf_nm_life/us_boxoffice_britain_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091020/lf_nm_life/us_boxoffice_britain_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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://www.webcitation.org/5p6kTm4hN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fawards%2Facademyawards%2F82%2Fnominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html
*Added  tag to http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982130?refCatId=13
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC?url=http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982130.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228014651/http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominations,949,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominations,949,BA.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. 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/20110726072415/http://screencrave.com/2009-09-04/terry-gilliam-rejected-tom-cruise-for-doctor-parnassus/ to http://screencrave.com/2009-09-04/terry-gilliam-rejected-tom-cruise-for-doctor-parnassus/
*Added  tag to http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2009/05/22/terry-gilliam-talks-about-heath-ledger-and-the-imaginarium-of-doctor-parnassus-at-cannes.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can you please explain the concerns you have that led you to tag this article? DonIago (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement?