Talk:Ghost World (film)

message: I took out this line: "It is a satire on the vacuousness of pop culture which intentionally takes the ironic format of a teen film." It's much more about the teenagers who disdain popular culture for personal reasons. There is actually very little about pop culture in the film. In my view, the film's more anout teen angst and alienation. Also, the "analysis" section needs major work. It's full of POV. -- D.M. (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Anyone looking for a satirical take on the vacuousness and self-importance of various aspects of popular culture would be much better served by a Christopher Guest mockumentary.  And about the analysis section: strictly speaking it should be cut or completely rewritten, as it's bordering on original research. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now made many edits to correct these deficiencies in the article. It's now (mostly) free of POV. -- D.M. (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "(comic book)" from the introduction, it's both redundant and slightly innaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.137.144 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Line removed from lead paragraph

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The image :Image:Ghost-world-poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Ghost-world-poster.jpg

message: This section is unsourced and needs to be converted into prose, properly cited and placed back in the article. Until then, I've placed it here.--J.D. (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two trivia points are universally accepted facts. It's like trying to give a citation that the sky is blue. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: Does anyone know what "Its critical reception was far greater than a certain degree of films released that year, significantly praised in many reviews" means?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.170.15 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The movie is based on a cult comic: http://www2.citypaper.com/film/review.asp?rid=5659
Not sure why you've decided it's not a cult film.  Most of the article is unreferenced, so can understand adding citation needed tags, but removing reference to this being a cult film with edit summary "not a cult film, whatever that even is" doesn't seem to make sense. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is a cult film. Two refs have been added to that effect under the Legacy section. I've also added more references. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  cult film/comic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ghost World (film). 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/20081014023112/http://www.rottentomatoes.com:80/features/special/2007/comic/?r=3&mid=1109008 to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/comic/?r=3&mid=1109008
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 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Earlier, I suggested that the categories "2000s coming-of-age films," "2000s teen comedy films," "American coming-of-age films," and, "American teen comedy films" be removed from this article. as, not only are they unsourced,  those categories link to parent categories listing Ghost World essentially as a film for children (e.g. "2000s coming-of-age films" and "American coming-of-age films" link to "Coming-of-age films by decade" and "Coming-of-age films by country," both link to "Coming-of-age films," which links to "Coming-of-age fiction," further linking to "Young adult fiction," linking to "Young adult books," which leads to "Young adult literature," leading to "Children's literature," "Children's media," "Early childhood education materials," "Early childhood education," and, even, "Children's entertainment"). An editor argued that this is a bogus reason, and, suggested I raise the issue here.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You've also been on a crusade to remove the word "Bildungsroman" from Wikipedia for the same dubious reason. You'd have to dig far and selectively for "Children's entertainment"- first you see "Works about adolescents" rather than "Works only for adolescents". More important than the parent categories (which are intentionally all-inclusive) are the definitions. Coming-of-age film: "Coming-of-age films focus on the psychological and moral growth or transition of a protagonist from youth to adulthood. Personal growth and change is an important characteristic of this genre, which relies on dialogue and emotional responses, rather than action. The main character is typically ... around mid-teen ... themes of developing sexual identity and political opinions are often featured in coming-of-age films; so, too, is philosophical development." Themes of sexuality and politics are rarely children's material. The mere fact that a work is about children does not mean it is for them. As Criterion recounted in its discussion about Walkabout (film): "Bond would come to full prominence in 1965 with his play Saved, a poetic portrait of working-class London life that scandalized audiences (or, more properly, a large number of those who had not seen it) with a shocking scene in which two youths stone to death an infant in a baby carriage. Of course, it was only representation: there was no baby in the carriage and there were no stones in the actors’ hands. Nevertheless, the Royal Court was forced to turn itself into a 'theater club' to escape censorship, and even seasoned theater critics—who had presumably seen Shakespeare’s grisly Titus Andronicus—expressed outrage. Among the play's defenders was Laurence Olivier, who wrote to one newspaper: 'Saved is not a play for children, but it is for grown-ups, and the grown-ups of this country should have the courage to look at it.'" Ribbet32 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand very well that the mere fact that a work is about children does not mean it is for them. That has not been my concern. My concern is about the parent categories, which are explicitly about works for children, as explained above. As long as Ghost World has those categories, Wikipedia categorizes it as a children's film and as children's entertainemnt. I believe it is not prudent. However, as I doubt I will ever reach a majority here, feel free to keep them if you wish.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, the parent categories do not matter as much as the definition of the terms. The parent categories are all-inclusive, but an alternative parent category to :Category:Young adult fiction is :Category:Works about adolescence, which again, is different from "Works for adolescents" or "Works only for adolescents". You need to stop edit warring across a multitude of articles over this parent category hang-up, which is causing you to misunderstand terminology. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I will stop, though, if you do not mind, I will appreciate it if you could replace the existing categories with the category you mentioned, seeing as you suggested it. Hope you accept my compromise as regards the art film designation as outlined below.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I cited several reliable sources from several different academics. Do you have a reliable source saying it is not an art film, or, even saying that calling it an art film is a minority opinion?--79.178.24.71 (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being ridiculous.  We do not cite sources saying a film does not fit a certain genre.  The lede is for the most widely held view, not for minority views.  Most critics call it a black comedy, so that is what we cite in the lede. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The designation of the film as an art film doesn't have to be mentioned in the lede, yet, the mere fact that several critics call it an art film means that the category stays: I hope that you'll accept my compromise of retaining the category while moving the art film designation to the reception section, where I note that several critics call it thusly.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: A Suggestion