Talk:Runaway production

message: It's a non-notable section whose references do not support the use of the term. Furthermore it appears to be more of a collection of opinions and not truly reporting about the history of cinema as a current event and if it is, should be retitled. Google's search results only show "Runaway Films" (company), and various movies and television series with that title. I have yet to find a single search result where the use of the term refers to films produced outside of the United States. It is most likely a term whose meaning has been made up by the creator. Mkdwtalk 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the speedy delete, as the term is in use. I've also moved the page to Runaway production, the more common usage. --Ckatzchatspy 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Deletion

message: Donteatyellowsnow, it's obvious that you are not prepared to tolerate any text that runs contrary to your feelings on this subject. Your most recent changes clearly demonstrate that, as you apparently feel it is acceptable to use wording such "the Canadian-based SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) scare, American productions couldn't run away fast enough from Canada", "Feisty Quebec labor groups have also made a lot of trouble", and "American productions fearfully stayed home". You've also cleverly edited some of the material I added to push your agenda. If you had actually examined my changes in context, you would see that I didn't remove information about productions leaving Canada in the wake of the SARS problem. nor did I attempt to bury the text about productions going to other countries. You, on the other hand, won't allow anything that is even remotely critical of your perspective. This is really frustrating - I have offered to work with you, and you have refused. --Ckatzchatspy 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you have come along and tried to delete this page and then you have put graffiti over it. Then despite your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, you have deleted major sections and/or re-written the article to reflect a Canadian bias and to omit facts or quotes (such as the ACTUAL quote about the Canadian Government fearing that other countries were "copying" their subsidy program). BTW, it is NOT inappropriate to use the verb "run" with "away" when talking about "runaway production" and I thought it was rather clever as well as factual to describe how that flow can and does reverse particularly during a crisis such as SARS (i.e. running away from Canada). You clearly object to the IDEA that productions can now be running away from Canada, as they clearly are beginning to do, and as I have documented. And BTW, that's what news media called it "the Sars scare" just like the "Bird Flu Scare"; those are not my words but actual news media terminology. And what is wrong with the word "feisty"? Do you know anyone from Quebec who might not be referred to by that word? Aren't people from Quebec naturally proud and yes... "feisty"? Please see Wikipedia's editing policy which encourages bold and creative editing and writing.  I quote: "Boldness: There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be: Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages." You have chosen to not be bold though. You have chosen to first DELETE this page, to question its existence, then to water it down with Canadian spin that you have attempted to find after-the-fact and without substantial knowledge of the subject. I did leave the few changes that you made that were neutral -- so don't say "you have tried to work with me" when you are obviosly trying to seem to the outside world that you are "neutral" when you are in fact, not. Wikipedia Editing Policy: Be Bold and Creative! Don't Water Down!
Donteatyellowsnow 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time, I DID NOT TRY TO DELETE THIS PAGE! Read the page, read the comments, and get your facts straight BEFORE you make spurious accusations that don't hold up under scrutiny. --Ckatzchatspy 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You might also wish to consider that Wikipedia's "be bold" guideline doesn't refer to using misleading, emotionally charged text to push an agenda. As for the "SARS" references etc. - again, I didn't delete them, I rewrote them to keep the information while removing the "spin". Just because a newspaper's copy editor chooses to paste "SARS scare" across the front page, it doesn't make it encyclopedic text. (Would you like it if someone added headline-grade writing bemoaning the dearth of original, quality films to the "Hollywood" article, as opposed to a reasoned analysis? I think not.) --Ckatzchatspy 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything I wrote was misleading. There were a few creative adjectives that were used. "SARS" scare, was not among them. Again, that was the common media terminology for the event. It was the text on the bottom of every television screen whether it was CNN, MSNBC or any other news outlet. And the event was, well, scary. Just like the "Anthrax Scare". "Scare" must just be a media term that is frequently used to describe things that are scary. I don't think using "scare" is loaded emotionally when that is part of the event and terminology that everyone is familiar with. In fact, I would argue that the "scare" itself might actually have been a larger part of the event as a proportion of the population being affected more than the actual spread of SARS itself. And regarding your comment about Hollywood, actually if you look at the Hollywood California page, you will see that there is a section about the homeless and runaway children population on Hollywood Boulevard that is very lengthy and obviously skewed to make it look like that is more of a problem than it actually is. I haven't checked, but I wonder if Toronto has that same section-- when it has an equally large number of homeless children and runaways lingering on the streets begging for change. I tried to edit that section in the Hollywood page (not delete it) just to bring it down in length and proportion of the issue and I believe that again, someone else with a bee in their bonnet (trying to pull down Hollywood) reversed it. What can you do? It seems par for the course here. I will say this though, my persistence with you has helped you to become more neutral and your newer edits are much less biased than previously. When previously you had gone through and removed certain words because you believed they were too charged, then I felt that you had removed much of the content as well as the heart of what the actual issue is. I know that there are others that have been more hostile and perhaps I've glommed you guys all in together as you all seem to come from the Canadian pages... that much seems apparent. You did do some severe editing and deleting previously and I think this discussion has led you to do more research and perhaps to even see that there is a real issue here. And that is a good thing - Donteatyellowsnow 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a once over today and tomorrow, but I found several easily correctable sentences. There are also many run-on sentences that can be dealt with at the same time. Mkdwtalk 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donteatyellowsnow's POV edits 

message: In Australia we were once delighted when US productions come here for shooting. Examples include the Matrix and Mission Impossible franchises and the latest Superman. It meant work for locals and lots of US dollars - yummy. However, the peasants caught on to the fact that cash cows are there to be milked: result being that local councils are now charging fortunes for shots of their humble streets, etc. Result: US filmmakers are now more reluctant to come down here and local filmmakers, now being slugged with the same fees, are priced out of filming in their own backyard! Lgh 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  delight down under 

message: This section is completely unencyclopedic and is really about the views of a couple people and not about facts. Someone please rewrite this section! I have also removed many grammatically incorrect sentences and redundant statements. Langara College 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Competing subsidies

message: I have just applied a citation request tag to a quotation found in the opening section. I recognize that the appearance seems odd given the fact that the quotation in question is immediately followed by references. So, a few words of explanation:
The quotation ("intended for initial release/exhibition or television broadcast in the U.S., but are actually filmed in another country.") used as part of a definition of the term in question, provides no less than three different references. I am unable to find these words in the first and third of the three referenences. Unfortunately, I have no access to the second, Nick Herd's Chasing the Runaways: Foreign Film Production and Film Studio Development in Australia 1988-2002. Perhaps it is here that these words are found. In any case, the quote is lacking a page reference. Victoriagirl 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation in the opening section

message: I  made an on-site revert to the changes made by user User:043314s. More than half the article was lost and new grammatical and punctuation errors were introduced. I think the editor tried to balance the article but in doing so introduced a new non NPOV slant to the article and a great deal of relevent information was lost. I would like to ask any major changes to this article to be discussed first as this article has been the subject of heated controversy. I was also worried because this change was User:043314s's one and only edit to Wikipedia. As well as no citations, references, and resources were provided to support his new material or removal of other. I'm not trying to deter people from editing this article, but its a strongly recommended suggestion as to avoid conflict. Thanks for your time. Mkdwtalk 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I support User:043314s' efforts to eliminate POV, I agree that discussion is warranted for such major changes. With this in mind, I'd like to suggest a simple beginning: the deletion of the 'Canada: A Program of Aggressive Labor Subsidies and Corporate Welfare' section, as being clearly unencyclopedic (from its rant-like title to content which amounts to little more than a quotefarm).  Victoriagirl 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The section is really only there to advance a particualr point of view, and has little in the way of relevant information. BTW, I fully support the "discuss, then change" proposal. I've been wanting to clean up this article for a long time now, but haven't had the desire to get dragged back into the mess that occured before. If we hash out material on the talk page, perhaps even section-by-section, than it will be much easier to justify the final product. --Ckatzchatspy 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:043314s|User:043314s]]

message: I thought it best to explain the reasoning behind my removal of the section entitled "Definition: Corporate Welfare":
*Although it linked Wikipedia's Corporate welfare article, it needlessly provided a definition (which, incidentally, didn't match that given in the article in question).
*The section was little more than a quotefarm.
*All quotes came from the same newspaper piece - in fact, the three paragraphs following the definition are nothing more than cut-and-paste jobs from the artcle.
*Although all three people quoted speak to corporate welfare in general, not one mentions the issue of runaway production.  Victoriagirl 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition: Corporate Welfare

message: This article is a 'current event' article. It's a fair statement to note how quickly things can change in the film industry, US and Canada. Scanning over many of the references, a large portion of the important references and content refer to events and affects around 2000 - 2001, making them around 8 years old. Since that tie much has changed, either in increases and decreases. The US economy and the strengthening of other markets such as Asia, Europe, parity of the Canadian dollar and the world wide drop in the stock market economy has affected the film industry. I recommend that in order for this article to remain relevant the references should be updated and content changed to match 2005+, and the other content be trimmed and moved to a more history related section. Mkdwtalk 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date template

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Runaway production. 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/20060523004903/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/cl-fi-hollycanada23oct23,0,4634644.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-hollycanada23oct23,0,4634644.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels
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 08:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page has been tagged since 2008 as having out of date information which may affect the factual accuracy of the article. Could someone with expert knowledge please review the article and remove the tag if necessary?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiffbear88 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that from looking at the edit history that the inaccurate information has been removed years ago, so I would advocate for the tag's removal too. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The article is filled with 20-year-old data. It’s woefully out of date (for one, the number of U.S. productions in Toronto had already begun falling off pre-pandemic). — SpikeToronto 14:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete info tag