Talk:Latter Days

A few comments

Just a few things that could do with a little citing. All pretty easy, I think - shouldn't cause a miserable Christmas.

• "It was not well received by film critics, although it was popular with most film festival attendees" - you probably do cover this later on, but it could do with citing on its own.

Cited.

• "Andrew is also an aspiring actor, but seems more interested in gossip and telling racy anecdotes. Andrew has been HIV positive for quite some time, but remains in good health." - this kind of character analysis does read like OR without citing.

Changed to "Andrew is also an aspiring actor, but spends more time at Lila's gossiping and telling racy anecdotes."

• "Susan is more accepting of her brother's homosexuality" - more of the same.

Changed to "Susan is the only Davis who accepts her brother's homosexuality. In a deleted scene, she tells Aaron that his homosexuality has changed nothing between them. She also discovers Aaron's suicide attempt."

• "Aaron's deeply religious mother, who has difficulty accepting the fact that her son is gay." - ditto.

Changed to "Aaron's deeply religious mother, who cannot accept the fact that her son is gay, and consequently places Aaron in a treatment facility to "cure" him.

• "Traci has moved from New York to LA to become an actress, but finds it difficult to make her mark, and works at Lila's to support herself. Traci does not like living in LA, but later admits she didn't like New York much either." - and more - it may all be blatantly true but character analysis can be pretty subjective stuff. I either cite it pretty rigorously in my opera articles or avoid it altogether.

Changed to "Traci has moved from New York to LA to become an actress, and works at Lila's to support herself." The problem with citing these things is I can't really cite the film itself, so I don't really know what I can reference it with.

Also, "The average critical rating on Rottentomatoes.com is 42%; however, the average user rating is 75%" - you've cited it, but haven't explained what the relevance is. This website does what, exactly? Is what? Is notable how? What importance? That sort of thing.

Done.

And I dislike spoilers. "Synopsis" is, I think, a better heading than "Plot" - or even "Plot synopsis" is good. The thing is that a heading with "synopsis" in it should really be enough to tell anyone that the synopsis is coming next: therefore the spoilers are redundant. I'm probably contravening some guideline here, so ignore this last bit if it is complete bollocks. Nice article, good work! Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed to synopsis.

How's it looking? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Holiday celebrated

I'm under the impression that the celebration at the end is a Thanksgiving Day meal, rather than Christmas. Guille 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Four more comments

...by someone who just read the article and never heard of the movie before:

• The lead states: "The movie was not well received by film critics". The Critical section, however, does not seem to echo this, and even litarally says: "Critical reviews have also been mixed". I say we change the sentence in the intro to: "The movie was met with mixed reactions from film critics, but was popular with most film festival attendees.".
• "During an encounter with Julie, she shows him her new video, which stuns Christian; realizing that part of the lyrics had come from his journal entry. Julie tries to convince Christian that she had only hoped that something good would come out of it. However, Christian is angry that he was betrayed." This part is unclear. Why was Christian "betrayed"? Because Julie used parts of his poem?
• "Nevertheless, a major theme of Latter Days is that there is an underlying spirituality in the world that goes beyond the rituals and dogmas of religion. This can be particularly seen in the scene where, after a day of making phone calls, Christian finally traces Aaron, writes down his phone number, and then discovers he has already idly drawn it on the previous page." This is also confusing. Was it some kind of magic?
• Perhaps the article should contain more then just one image from the movie?

Cheers, Face 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, that sounds good.
2. He's upset because she stole his journal and plagiarised bits of his entry about how heartbroken he is. I imagine you'd feel pretty betrayed too.
3. It's implied that God intervened. It's deliberately left unclear.
4. Like what? There aren't any relevant free images. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Alright, changed it.
2. Did she stole his cellphone and journal, or did she just took a look at it? Maybe we should change this sentence: "However, Christian is angry that he was betrayed."; to: "However, Christian feels betrayed because Julie read and used his personal journal entry without his consent."
3. Someone removed the sentence. Propably I wasn't the only one who considered it confusing. Nevertheless, it sounds like an interesting and significant scene to me. Perhaps you could re-add the description a more clearer wording?
4. No, there propably aren't. But I think it's acceptable to have two or three non-free screenshots to illustrate important characters/scenes. Also, the quality of the current screenshot is a bit low, I must say.

I applied the first two points, see here. Cheers, Face 13:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free screenshot

I am not sure if the screenshot in the film article has the necessary critical commentary (per WP:NFC) for inclusion. The screenshot is tied to a point in the plot, and since primary sources (in this case, the film) can only have basic descriptions (per WP:PSTS), it would be interpretative to make any thematic connections between the screenshot and the plot. The screenshot may be suitable in the "Critical" section if the scene was specifically referenced. Any chance of finding commentary that suits the screenshot or a replacement screenshot that suits existing commentary? —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• blinks* I don't really know what that meant. The scene in the screenshot is located next to the paragraph in which its plot is described, I can detail the caption if you would like? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I mean to say, what is the rationale for the screenshot? It has to be used "for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television," per WP:NFC. A basic description of the plot does not fit this rationale. Where would the threshold be? One could argue to include five screenshots that fit points in the plot. Since the plot is not critical commentary, it cannot be used to support the screenshot. For ideas, see how Mulholland Drive uses screenshots for thematic purposes, where Fight Club uses screenshots for production purposes. Hope these examples make the need for rationale a little clearer! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Romantic, comedy, drama, what?

Eh, this article doesn't mention the fact that it's a film until later in the introduction, it should be stated cleary in the definition. I was unsure reading it if it was a television series, book or film. Guessing from the picture, I thought it might be a TV series since I hadn't heard of it. Only when I kept reading it did I realise it was a film. I'm surprised such a basic error was missed in a featured article. - Dalta (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is mediocre at best. The mechanics, the prose, the entire article falls well below FA standards. Clearly wikipedia mods are being blinded by political correctness. If this movie was simply a romantic comedy, I doubt it would even achieve good status. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mods? What role did Wikipedia mods (admins) have in promoting this article to FA status? None of the editors who supported the FAC were even administrators at the time. If you think the article does not meet the current FA criteria (which may be the case, since the standards have changed drastically since December 2006), then please address the matter at the proper venue. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Then be quiet. —Godheval^{T C W} 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what Godheval means is that you shouldn't raise an objection if you're not willing to pursue the matter very far. Brutannica (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm more than happy to pursue the problem if there was potential for change, but there isn't. It would set a great precedent if the politically-motivated status of this article were to be reserved, but wikipedia would never allow that. Seriously - replace the gay/homosexual theme with heterosexuality, now, do you honestly believe it would still be featured? Didn't think so. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and submit this to FAR instead of raving about some wiki conspiracy which you have no evidence of? If you're still not interested, I'd like to see you explain what parts of the FA criteria you think the article fails here on the talk page. That way, we can at least get something productive done... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Are you really arguing the absurdly bureaucratic and bandwagoning process that exists within wikipedia? Lolz. Please, I know we need to be "diverse", but what qualities make this article truly stand out? Aside from it being homosexual themed, there is nothing particularly amazing about the article. I think people are afraid to criticize for fear of being deemed "intolerant", "jaded", "homophobic", or my favorite; "insecure". Plus, usually there is a moderate amount of discussion in TALK before an article is ever submitted to whoever judges FA-nominated articles. There were only TWO short discussions in the 5 months before, TWO. i know there isn't a rule that requires an article to have x amount of attention, but seriously, what motivated you guys to push this ahead?? UH? Of all articles currently being debated from Good Status to FA, this is it? I personally don't care whether an article is FA or Good since I can't find any differential qualities, but I'm concerned that wikipedia as an organization would bend over to political correctness. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, take a gander at the milestones. Within 15 days it goes from normal to FEATURED. The featured discussion has only SIX users arguing. SIX! Come'on, surely this article should have gone through a longer laundry cycle than that. Plus, the featured argument occurred TWO years before it was promoted. Wtf? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the short turnaround is because I work in brief, intense bursts (See the diff for this article). And usually alone, hence the lack of discussion on this talkpage. Maybe FAC has changed since 2006, but back then six users for a non-controversial article on a minor film was pretty good going. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 03:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To put this in the nicest way I am capable of wording it, Wikifan12345, your understanding of what it means for an article to be featured is so far from reality, it is laughable. Seriously. First, the article's subject is completely and totally irrelevant to the decision; featured articles are chosen based on quality (and after a discussion). For more information on the featured article criteria, see WP:FAC. Second, the article was not promoted two years after the discussion began. It was promoted about two weeks after the discussion started, on 30 December 2006. When, if ever, the article appears on the main page is not the promotion date. As others have stated, the proper venue to address concerns that the article no longer meets the featured criteria is featured article review. Be prepared, however, to actually state what criteria the article fails. - auburnpilot's sock 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already listed reasons. Reducing my complaints to simple unfamiliarity with the system is NOT persuasive, but I couldn't care less. Any wikier with half a brain knows this article doesn't even border Good status, let alone FA. People are TOO distracted with the SUBJECT and not the mediocrity. Hell, just take a look at the intro. Since when are simple-sentences featured qualifiers? *LAUGHS* Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Man, this romantic drama is so gay!

What is "gay romantic drama" anyway? Article for Autumn in New York doesn't mention it's "hetero romantic drama" either, does it? Sexuality of main protagonists is in no way the crucial factor of the movie. If they were blacks, would it be "black gay romantic drama" as well? Please consider rephrasing the first sentence, currently it sounds gay (as in awkward).

75.102.25.27 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? One of the main characters coming to terms with his sexual orientation is the main focus of the film. This alone separates it from an ordinary "romantic drama".THD3 (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with THD3. "Homosexual romantic drama" just sounds weird to me. The word "gay" is not a pejorative unless one is a high school boy. I think it should be called a "gay romantic drama." Saying such a work has "homosexual themes," etc, just sounds pompous or censorious. 75.102.25.27 doesn't seem serious. Sexuality is an important part of this movie. It should be called a gay drama barring great community objection. Let's revert the edit. Auranor (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is kind of WP:LAMEish. Should we call the movie a "gay romantic drama", a "homosexual romantic drama", or just a "romantic drama"? I say we use "gay romantic drama", because its the most common description. Compare this with this. Cheers, Face 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Even though the characters in the film are homosexual, by labeling it a "gay romantic drama" the article is suggesting some necessary distinction between straight and gay relationships. That it involves a same-sex relationship becomes clear immediately as you read the article, and so the initial label is not only unnecessary but seems divisive. So, no THD3, he/she is NOT joking. The "gay" qualifier needs to be removed. And will be.—Godheval^{T C W} 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The first question is whether "gay drama" exists as a genre of film. If the answer to this question is "yes", then the second question is whether this film is in that genre. I'm not sure about either question. The first may be resolved elsewhere on wikipedia, the second we can only answer after reviewing the definition of "gay drama" or "gay romantic drama".--345Kai (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any genre called "gay drama" - at least not here on Wikipedia, or on any film site I have seen. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still include the term, personally; a major aspect of the plot, based on the article's description, is a main character coming to terms with his sexuality, both in his eventual partner's accepting community and in his home restrictive community. These themes don't exist for most heterosexual romances, because in much of society they're moot; for a gay romance, it remains important in today's society. That's waht makes this different from a heterosexual romance, and why the distinction should be left in the film's definition. Radagast (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a compromise to be had here? It seems to me that the beef isn't to do with mentioning the film as a "gay drama", but more to do with the choice of wording. How about: "Latter Days is a 2003 American romantic drama about a gay relationship between a closeted Mormon missionary and his openly gay neighbor." This also has the benefit of removing the "party animal" description someone complained about below. Steve ^{T • C} 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Closer, but still not good enough. It's still making special distinction, as if to imply that a gay relationship is necessarily different from a straight one (outside the obvious difference). That it involves a gay couple is mentioned clearly as the description goes on. —Godheval^{T C W} 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As Radagast says above, in the context of this film, the fact that the relationship is a gay one is integral to the plot, as it heavily involves the reactions to it from the Mormon church members and the main character, who is hesitant about revealing his homosexuality. So in summarising the plot in the lead, it does need referencing in some way. You say that it is not necessary because it is mentioned as the description goes on, but this would be removed if the wording was revised:

Latter Days is a 2003 American romantic drama about a gay relationship between a closeted Mormon missionary and his openly gay neighbor. The film was written and directed by C. Jay Cox. It stars Steve Sandvoss as the missionary, Aaron, and Wes Ramsey as the neighbor, Christian. Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears as Elder Ryder, and Rebekah Johnson as Julie Taylor. Mary Kay Place, Amber Benson and Jacqueline Bisset have supporting roles.

How does that look? Steve ^{T • C} 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Steve's suggestion a lot. I'm all for it.--345Kai (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Steve's is the best solution.THD3 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

Call me old-fashioned, but 'party animal' is not a phrase you should see in an encyclopaedia. It's just too slangy. And certainly, if you are going to keep it (which I really don't think you should if you want to be viewed as a serious encyclopaedia), the term should have an explanation. It is wrong to assume that the reader will know what a party animal is. A certain demographic in a certain part of the world might, but this is supposed to be an international encyclopaedia, using language that is clear, concise and easily understood by all. 86.150.102.181 (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. "Party animal" is not the only problem word in this article. It's just the most obvious, because it's in the lead. The style often gets too informal in this article.--345Kai (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The term party animal was used because I couldn't think of a more formal equivalent. What do you suggest we change it to? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 04:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How about: "...of openly gay Christian Markelli (Wes Ramsey), an aspiring actor and party lover, ..."
Or perhaps: "...of the hedonistic, promiscuous and openly gay Christian Markelli (Wes Ramsey), an aspiring actor, ..."
Cheers, Face 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Featured Article Review

I feel that this article no longer meets the current Featured Article criteria. The article is in decent shape except for the "Development and production" section which is more like that of a Start class article. It is not comprehensive enough to meet the Featured Article's "comprehensive" criteria. If there is no improvement to the article or further comments in the next few weeks, I will nominate this article for Featured Article Review. - Kollision (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Orgazmo was not put there as "just another Mormon movie"

It's a movie dealing with a Mormon missionary and sexual straying and the justaposition of the two cultures. It is way more similar than "another Mormon movie". It was put there for the same rationale that I put Grimm's Fairy Tales in the See Also for Hans Christian Anderson. (Please let's discuss it before we settle. I am open to your points, but want to make clear a deeper rationale).TCO (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. It just seemed sort of random, but I haven't seen it, and if you say they're similar, I'll take your word for it. :-) (Shouldn't the Orgazmo article have a link to Latter Days, then?) –BMRR (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. TCO (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Building the Production section up

Article seems to be making strides (no thannks to me). Kudos to Kollison and German Joe. Stated purpose of FAR is to go for the save!

I wonder if we can use some quotes and such from the principles (from RSes, blabla) to build this section up. You can see how this was done well a Allegro (musical). Searching for the director and some of the stars leads to comments they make about the movie and such. If we could get a remark or two on any troubles (or even lack of troubles) in the actual process of filming, then that would go pretty far to fleshing the thing out.

http://www.stevenhousman.com/Profiles/CJayCox.html

http://www.wesramsey.com/biography.html

TCO (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some very brief remarks are in the special featurette on UK release DVD, mentioning the difficult initial funding (allegedly C.J. Cox funded some starting money to get the ball rolling), and that TLA Releasing got involved in the movie production after checking the script (with not much more information than the script alone). The featurette is just hard to use, frankly most of it's content seems to be aimed more on promotional value than on specific background information - but some tidbits can certainly be included. Working on awards (up to 11 now) at the moment, but i'll check your two links too, thanks TCO. GermanJoe (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As the person who wrote this article originally, I would like to thank those of you who worked to improve it, I think it looks excellent. Well done. :) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)