Talk:Paul Thomas Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup[edit]

Will work on it soon, tagged in the meantime. -fftbm

removed all references to "independent film influences," as Anderson's films, excluding the low-budget Hard Eight, exhibit virtually no independent film influence - rather, they hearken back to older films from the thirties and forties that used long takes, usually on dolly shots, as well as Scorsese films such as Casino and Age of Innocence that employ steadicam tracking shots of long duration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.212.101 (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

"... intricate camera moves so sublime that viewers can't even comprehend the genius of what they are taking in" and "he times lyrical songs ... with a perfection that is inhuman"

Is this a joke? Clear violation of NPOV policy. -67.34.137.50

Agreed. The latest entry contains far too much personal opinion (and overblown at that). -David L Rattigan

I'll also third the objections to the two recent paragraphs of analysis, which might be appropriate in a film review or scholarly paper, but not here. -Hedgey42 08:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This still reads like a puff piece. 194.144.92.20 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarettes and Coffee shut down[edit]

The most well known PTA fan site apparently went dark last month. I'm removing the links for time being, although a member of the Xixax.com message board suggests it may be revived...(note: the site has been revived at: www.cigarettesandredvines.com by one of the original owners]

Recommendations[edit]

I deleted the recommendations section -- doesn't seem to be relevant. --Arcadian 5 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

Rebels on the Backlot[edit]

The following content was removed on 22:26, 28 July 2005 by 68.67.33.33 -- Should it be reincluded? --Alan Au 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His most obvious influences are the directors Martin Scorsese and Robert Altman.
Sharon Waxman's 2005 book Rebels on the Backlot was highly critical of Anderson's behavior as a director. She specifically states that while filming Magnolia, Anderson would not listen to advice or criticism from anyone because he had been given 'final cut' of the film.

About terminology[edit]

«He is part of the first generation of "VCR filmmakers" - directors such as Quentin Tarantino, who through seeing thousands of films on video, have an encyclopedic knowledge of technique and cultural references.»

Although this may be true, I think it is not clear whether that terminology is usual or not —specially after searching through Google, only to achieve three results for "VCR filmmakers", all of them mere copies of the main article.

The Other Paul Anderson?[edit]

Is it worth adding a link to the other famous Paul Anderson (now credited as Paul W. S. Anderson)? Their names strike me as very similar (not to mention they're in the same profession) and I've seen disambig links for less (like Dave Chappelle linking to David LaChapelle). --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable to me, just reverted an anon ip trying to remove it. Arniep 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to have this at the top of the page. A note at the end is more tasteful. I was under the impression ANYONE was allowed to participate in the editing. It seems a small group keep reverting this back.

I really see absolutely no reason to have the link at the top of the page for Paul W.S. Anderson. It seems to me that it is entirely unlikely that someone would search "Paul Thomas Anderson" if they meant the "Paul W.S. Anderson." Furthermore, if someone types in "Paul Anderson," they are taken to a disambiguation page. That seems more than enough. Sixtus LXVI 04:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't really see how anyone could really confuse the two to the point of coming here for W. S.. I say leave it off. --badlydrawnjeff 14:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Is there some reason not to link to Maya Rudolph? Tom Harrison (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • None that I know of... looks like an anonymous user who perhaps isn't Rudolph's biggest fan. FWIW, Rudolph's page links to PTA's. - Hedgey42 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original edit. It was fine, with OR without a link to Rudolph.

Again, the original edit was fine but I see we have a few bullies who will keep reverse editing it. There is no rule that every sentence has to be chocked full of hypermarkups. Hedgey and Crumb, stop adding snarky personal comments in your edits. It's very unprofessional to say the least.

Date of birth[edit]

It was changed in accordance with the U of Chicago's record on screenwriters. June 26 was a change made by IMDB in February 2006 which was changed from the January 1 date for no given reason. The correct date is January 1. Lincher 18:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the change, here and here gives the correct dates. IMDB probably changed it afterwards. Lincher 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

It hardly needs to be said that the current picture of Mr. Anderson is distinctly unflattering, to such a degree that I question the motives of you who keep it up. Are we implying that the subject has a cocaine habit, or just being generally juvenille? Renfield 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a more flattering picture, although it is a little smaller. Husky (talk page) 11:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph in there now is pretty bad, since you can't even see his face at all. How hard can it be to find a picture of the guy where he's looking at the camera? I know they exist, I've seen them. 64.95.27.5 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]

I changed the picture from one that I found on Imdb.com Sugreev2001 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a new picture in their instead of leaving it blank Anarchonihilist (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this picture can't be included until a better one is found. You have to use what you have - 75.69.143.210 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia and Kevin Smith[edit]

I found it strange that this feud makes up a major part of the article. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this info into a "trivia" section? Johannes Wich-Schwarz 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I made that change. NickBurns 05:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

His three big-budget films (after Hard Eight) were headlined by Mark Wahlberg, Tom Cruise and Adam Sandler, respectively.

I took this out as the trivia entry is about actors who work repeatedly with Thomas, not to mention that Wahlberg was cast (after DiCaprio turned him down) after Thomas saw him in The Basketball Diaries and Tom Cruise does not "headline" Magnolia. RoyBatty42 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Loops[edit]

The page for one of my favorite musicians (Land of the Loops) has been removed and now redirects to this page. Is there any reason for this?Rejecticon (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know why Land of the Loops redirects here. It don't make no sense. It makes so little sense that I think it must be accidental or some kind of intentional vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.171 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Frequent Cast table[edit]

I don't think it's an unnecessary table. It's a useful way to show the amount of collaboration from Anderson's frequent stars. The table was taken directly from the one on Kevin Smith's article. Thief12 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarettes and Red Vines[edit]

The PTA site http://www.cigarettesandredvines.com/ appears to be down. Don't know if it's a temporary glitch or something more permanent. If so the links and references will have to be removed. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "VCR filmmakers"[edit]

I don't think using made-up terms is a good thing to do on Wikipedia, and it also doesn't really make much sense. Several directors of the New Hollywood movement (and even before, if we go outside American cinema) were basically film buffs who watched a lot of movies and then had the chance to make their own - it's nothing something new, although it became more popular in the 90s with the rise in popularity of independent cinema. I don't think using made-up terms really helps this article's reliability, and I also don't believe that just because PTA is a 90s director he has to be in some way associated with other Generation X directors. I don't think we need to make up a whole term just to stuff Tarantino, Smith, Linklater and other mostly unrelated directors in PTA's article - the fact that he didn't go to film school is crucial but I don't see how him reaching success when other directors did is any relevant. I noticed that many articles tend to mention Tarantino even when he has nothing to do with them, do I sense a bit of fanboyism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisManHasNoName (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Collaborators chart[edit]

{{3O}}

I was unaware that this table had already been made and deleted when I made it. I also like these types of tables, so it two against one emo-boy(ElliottSmith001). Yinzland (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2010 (Refactored from the About the Frequent Cast table section, above. That section was about a similar, but different Frequent Casting chart (i.e. this one), not the Recurring Collaborators chart (i.e. this one) which is currently in dispute. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian who noted that you had placed a {{3O}} tag here. I have removed that tag, however, because no corresponding listing was made on the Third Opinion project page and a Third Opinion can only be obtained by listing it there. I would note, however, from the instructions on the Third Opinion project page that, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." Since there has been no discussion of the Recurring Collaborators chart here, yet, you should not list it at the Third Opinion project until you can get some discussion going here and unless that discussion does not resolve the issue. If you can't seem to get discussion going here, you might want to consider making a request for comments at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or some other more specific noticeboard or project such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. (Note to other 3O Wikipedians: In the event that this request is listed at the 3O page, I have not yet "taken" it or somehow "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Thomas Anderson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

  • One initial issue I see at a glance is that the lead does not appear to properly summarize the article; it skims over the films very quickly, doesn't touch on the sections Influences/Style, Other Work, and Personal Life, and contains a paragraph of critical evaluation that doesn't appear in the body at greater length. (Full guideline at WP:LEAD). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose in regards to the films, it could read something like "His career began in 1996 with Hard Eight" or something like that and then flesh out the explanations of his other five features. Possibly move his critical evaluation to a "Recognition" section below. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Even as a fan, sentences such as "Anderson is often considered the greatest filmmaker of his generation." should be re-written or taken away, no? SammyJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.197.78 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to be an exaggeration. Out of the sources given in the "Recognition" section, only the Guardian appears to name him the greatest director, right? This should be rephrased more moderately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more points:

  • "so he could "garner ammunition" on what he called a "bad situation,"" -- I have no idea what this means.
  • "sundance filmmakers' lab"--Googling this suggests that it's not punctuated or capitalized correctly in the article
  • "even though Rysher did nothing to promote it," -- this appears to be only Anderson's side of the story, and should be identified as such in-text.
  • "in the summer 1995" -- this isn't grammatical (should be "summer of"), but in any case should be rewritten per WP:REALTIME (GA criterion 1b)
  • "The result was Anderson's breakout film[21][22][23] Boogie Nights (1997), a full-length major motion picture based on his short The Dirk Diggler Story." -- are six citations really necessary in this sentence? This seems awfully basic and noncontroversial.
  • " Roger Ebert wrote that "Sandler, liberated from the constraints of formula, reveals unexpected depths as an actor. Watching this film, you can imagine him in Dennis Hopper roles. He has darkness, obsession and power."[39]" -- it seems very off-topic to quote Ebert about Sandler here instead of Anderson. Did no reviewer discuss Anderson's script or direction? I'd suggest that this quotation simply be cut in interests of conciseness (or maybe moved to the Adam Sandler article, or the PDL article).
  • The section on The Master needs to be updated; I think we can agree Hoffman's involvement is not just a report any more. Also, the given source does not mention anything about critical acclaim.
  • "Anderson is currently in pre-production for " -- rewrite per WP:REALTIME
  • "Other Work" -- Why is this separate from "career"?
  • As a broad note about the article, one-paragraph sections should be avoided per WP:LAYOUT (criterion 1b again). Can some of these very brief sections and subsections be merged? I think all the subheaders in "Influences and style" could simply be deleted, for example. The accolades and recognition section could clearly be combined--I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the two. You could also consider making the awards table collapsible, given its enormous length.
  • "The couple currently resides in the San Fernando Valley" -- rewrite per WP:REALTIME
  • "A Negative Assessment of Anderson's Work By Prof. Ray Carney" -- this doesn't seem like a uniquely valuable resource, and I'd suggest deleting it per WP:EL. I've had the impression from film articles before that someone has mass-added links to Carney's web essays, and this seems to me another example. Actually, I'm going to go ahead and delete this, but you can revert me if you want. It's not an issue for the GA criteria either way.

Overall, this seems to me like it was a bit of a premature nomination, and next time I'd recommend that you take some time to go over the article yourself for proofreading and the general GA criteria before nominating--it saves a lot of time in the reviewing process. (It's honestly a bit of a red flag when a nominator hasn't worked on the article yet.) I'm glad you're interested in bringing this one up to GA standard, though, and will be glad to work with you to get it there. Thanks already for your work on improving the lead, I think it's much better. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some of the above has been addressed, but more unsourced content has been added to the lead: "Anderson is often considered to be the greatest and the most dynamic filmmaker of his generation, initially being praised as a wunderkind after the release of Boogie Nights and Magnolia. He has been described as the "Stanley Kubrick of the 21st Century". The lead should be rewritten in a neutral tone and not present information not in the body; quotations also need sourcing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Looks like much of the above has been addressed, so I'll proceed to the checklist to finish this off. Thanks to everybody who's contributed so far; it's a nice change of pace to have several editors giving input and corrections for the review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few last action points:

  • "while the American Film Institute regards him as "one of American film's modern masters." -- What would you think about adding date/context to this statement? It seems to be from a 2007 statement rather than a current one, though I agree they're unlikely to have changed their minds.
  • It seems like the extremely long table of accolades could be made collapsible; not many readers will need this level of detail. I don't think this is a relevant point for the GA criteria, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. It remains unclear to me why the sections "Recognition" and "Accolades" are separate sections-- couldn't these be combined? Also see point above about "AFI regards him..."
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA
Combined Recognition and Accolades. I think the wording of the AFI sentence sugguested it was from 2007 but it was just worded wrong. Now says "In 2007, Total Film named him the twentieth greatest director of all time and the American Film Institute regarded him as "one of American film's modern masters."Allwham (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source in external links[edit]

A rather angry IP editor has restored a Ray Carney essay as the top external link for the article.[1] I won't edit war over it, but this inclusion seems silly to me for several reasons.

First, a quotation from Carney's essay could easily be integrated into the essay as with any other critic's views; there's no reason that he should stand alone. Per WP:EL, the external links section should be reserved for major external resources that can't be integrated into the article. Second, it doesn't appear to me a more valuable resource than the others listed here; I'm not sure I understand the insistence that Carney be listed at the top. Third, if Carney's views are so important, let's at least find a non-self-published version somewhere. If no publication was ever willing to publish Carney on this topic, it suggests to me that his views are not, in fact, the most important web resource existing on PTA. Just my two cents, though, and I'll be interested to hear what others think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Paul Thomas Anderson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent collaborators[edit]

I decided to be bold and remove anyone who had appeared in fewer than 3 of PTA's films. Two films does not make one a "frequent collaborator". I don't think the chart is necessary at all, especially since there is a text block with references talking about the actors and other collaborators who have worked with Anderson numerous times. If we're going to have such a section at all, it should be text, as it is in the Terry Gilliam article, because those charts just take up space for no good reason. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well delete the whole section while you're at it- now that you've deleted most of them, half the columns are blank. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life.[edit]

Under personal life it states Anderson dated Fiona Apple from 1997 to 2002. Underneath that it states He has been in a long-term relationship with actress and comedienne Maya Rudolph since November 2001. So which is it? Did he date Fiona until 2002 while being in a serious relationship with Maya Rudolph since 2001? Also the check mark table thing under frequent collaborators is big and ugly and makes the page look wonky. Paige Matheson (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Photograph[edit]

PTA's photo makes him look very bland, and fails to capture his intensity. Please change it, as his work is exceptional and it's important not to portray him as some run-of-the-mill wannabe (which the photo makes him look). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.32.218 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PTA is a friendly person so it's okay if the photo doesn't make him look intense. More relevantly, the photo is 15 years old, it should be updated. Dlh9690 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Thomas_Anderson&oldid=1219956028"