Talk:The Canyons (film)

letitcast[edit]

half of this article sounds like an advertisement for letitcast.com. is this information really necessary? 99.45.169.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since letitcast played a very big part in casting I do think it's necessary. teammathi 22:47, 21 July 2012 (CET)

4 way[edit]

Who are the 2 "porn actors" who are in the 4 way with the leads? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Promenade[edit]

In the NYT's article the "Santa Monica Promenade", a "mall," was the last location. Was this the Santa Monica Place or the Third Street Promenade or some other place? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Street Promenade isn't a mall, it's the street Santa Monica Place is located on. teammathi (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT's Magazine article talks of the Santa Monica Promenade which had demanded $10,000 for permission to film. Which is that?

Editing[edit]

A large number of edits I have made to this article have been reverted by Teammathi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would you, or anyone else discuss the reasons for those edits. I can't think of any valid reason for removing information from a good source or adding appropriate references to the article. Most of the material was from the lengthy article in The New York Times Magazine which an excellent source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have only removed unnecessary information. It doesn't matter how reliable the source is, Deen's and Lohan's work ethic and private lives don't belong into this article. I also removed excessive linking to the same source, you linked the same source 10 times in only one section. teammathi (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a news reporter present during much of the filming; this was known to everyone. Lohan was given an opportunity be released from her contract when her publicity agent complained. I know how this usually goes but the usual privacy available on a set was not accorded. Each item of information added should be sourced which is why I added the reference to the NYT's article a number of times and created a name for the reference to the Facebook note on Casting. With respect to Lohan and Deen, the information I added is about their behavior as actors, not personal information of the sort that would not be acceptable. Keep in mind the article is about the making of a film. By the way, were you able to view the NYT's article? It is quite detailed and has a great deal of additional information that might be included in the article. Westfield Century City is the link to the mall that was used. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if a reporter was present. That kind of information doesn't belong into an encyclopedic article and Lohan's sleepover with Lady Gaga has nothing to do with her behaviour as an actress. I haven't had time to read the article. Everything in the article is sourced, when there's a link to a source in the article, that means that everything before that link and after the link before that is sourced with that link as a reference. And a reference only has to be named if it's used multiple times in an article. teammathi (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it does matter if a reporter was present and the source underwent an editorial process as the New York Times Magazine article did. I think a good part of this is that you haven't read the article. You can read 10 articles a month on The New York Times for free. If you haven't used up your quota please read this. It is a very good article, and a much more reliable source than Facebook pages put up by principals in production of or publicists for the film. Reverting the naming of a reference to prevent its use multiple times is simply not acceptable. It is not even effective; the full citation be copied and used in its place. The source needs to be cited for block of information added which came from that source. Naming references is not outside our rules even if the reference is only used once. Besides the citation is not done well, it is not clearly identifiable as a post on a Facebook page put there by whoever owns the page "The Canyons." Who is that and who did make that post? As to notability of behavior on the set or off the set during filming it is the publishing of the material in a prominent edited source which establishes notability.

Funding/Kickstarter[edit]

Just read the NYT article, and thought it was weird there's no reference to Kickstarter in the article? Is this not one of the most noteworthy films to be part-funded through this? I see the Kickstarter page is used as a reference, but there's no funding section? 141.0.48.3 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The funding is mentioned in the "Production and marketing" section. teammathi (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting[edit]

I won't actually delete any of the content -- I'll save that for another editor, however, the casting section of this article is an absolute disaster. Besides the frequent mentions of letitcast, which (as mentioned earlier) is obviously an attempt to advertise for them, there is no need to mention the dozens of largely unknown actors and actresses who were considered for the starring roles. If any of these people become famous someday, then yes, it might make sense to mention who was almost cast in this movie at some point in the future. But as things presently stand, the lists of people who were considered for the cast are useless at best. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated mention of letitcast is definitely not an attempt at advertising the website. I wrote that section and I have absolutely no affiliation with them. I have removed the names of unknown actors who weren't cast. I don't think that letitcast was mentioned too often. It was the main tool for casting the actors so it should be mentioned that often and it really isn't mentioned that often. Whenever an actor is cast through that website, the name is of course mentioned. teammathi (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour of the actors while shooting[edit]

A short while ago, I removed some information of Lohan during shooting because I thought it was unimportant but after doing some more research I have come to the conclusion that the actors' behavior isn't so unimportant after all. Lohan's behaviour during filming, showing up late because of partying etc. seems to have affected the production quite a bit so I think it should be included in the article but I'd like to hear some opinions from other editors first on what should be included and in which section. The primary sources would be the Times article, this Sun article of Deen commenting on Lohan's behaviour and possibly others. teammathi (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the film's notability is better founded in it's production drama since it's on-screen drama is not playing well thus incurring perceived failure as art and commerce; IMO, funny and sad. I suggest a brief paragraph stating controversial news coverage occurred during production with complete citations but omit the titillating specifics. I suggest in a small number of years few will care. The Daily Beast article The Guardian article New York Post article – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

synopsis[edit]

Synopsis means "with (one) eye". This synopsis is far too long, and generally the article is. --174.116.106.248 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]