Talk:Body of Lies (film)

Headlines

• Dubai rejects Scott's 'Lies'
• Leonardo DiCaprio And Russell Crowe Will Be A Good 'Fit' In CIA Flick, Ridley Scott Hopes
• Russell Crowe Says ‘Body Of Lies’ Probably Won’t Be Popular
• Russell Crowe filming in Maryland
• Yes, that was Russell Crowe in Annapolis

Headlines... ones used have been struck out, but the last one is no longer online. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Resolved

 – Film is confirmed to be titled Body of Lies via its trailer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the movie has been changed to House of Lies, likely for marketing reassons, Body of Lies sounds like something starring Sharon Stone perhaps. 201.215.174.211 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that there is verifiability about a definite title change. I did find this interview in which Ridley Scott said it was renamed to A House of Lies. I'm not certain about the finality of this statement since recent press continues to call it Body of Lies. I've redirected House of Lies and A House of Lies here, and if we can source a title change, we can request a move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

An article in The Kansas City Star on July 4, 2008 mentions the rename to House of Lies. Trying to find further confirmation; they may have simply garnered that detail from IMDb, which can be inaccurate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The new trailer shows that it's Body of Lies, so that closes the discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Russell Crowe weight issue

The Wiki article says Crowe lost 30 pounds for the role. As heavy as he appears in the photos, I suspect the article should read that he gained 30 pounds for the role. Can someone research and verify this point?

Portia McCracken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.234.251 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely think it's a mistake. Crowe gained weight for this movie, not lost.SchumiChamp (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-screening

The movie is also being pre-screened at the University of Kansas on October 7th. 129.237.169.101 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Consensus appears to be to leave Body of Lies a dab page until it becomes clear which topic is primary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Body of Lies (film) → Body of Lies — I am setting up this discussion for a requested move on the behalf of another editor, who initially redirected Body of Lies, currently a disambiguation page, to Body of Lies (film). I think that we should determine a consensus that if the film article is the primary topic, Body of Lies (film) should be moved to Body of Lies. However, there are a couple of factors to consider -- Body of Lies (novel) is the primary source on which the film is based, and it may be considered recentism to push a new film article to claim the "primary topic" slot. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Considering that the film is based on the novel, I feel that Body of Lies (novel) should be moved to Body of Lies. The title of this article be kept as it is. However if there is an opinion that the film is more notable and better coverage, the move is fine. An example of such a situation is Sex and the City and Sex and the City (novel). ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A preliminary thought... I think it is clear that the film will make bigger headlines than the book on which it is based, but considering that both are recent mediums, is it too preemptive to put one ahead of the other? Is it because the novel article is not as fleshed out? WP:NCF says, "When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, title the film article like this: Film Title (film)." Just food for thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care which one is the primary article (although the traffic statistics [1] [2] surely give the answer). My problem is where editors interested in creating pages (I'm saying this in general, I'm not referring to any one editor) put their interest in pumping up their own page creation statistics before the interest of the those reading this encyclopedia. When a dab page has two entries its a waste of a page, a waste of time, and a waste of clicks. All search problems can easily be resolved by making one of the articles the "main" article and placing a hatnote at the top of the article pointing to the other article. With a dab page, every single searcher will have to click twice to see their article. Without a silly two-entry dab page, atleast half (ideally) of searchers will see their article with one click. One might think, "big deal, it's just a click". But as editors, besides for writing an encyclopedia, we must manage this encyclopedia. So even for those that have a high-speed connection and another click will not make a difference, that split second is more important than our desire to create new silly two-entry dab pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I created both the novel article and the disambiguation article, I'll explain why I structured it the way I did in the first place. Since both were recent mediums, I wanted to provide an objective setup so both topics could be presented equally. I guess I just think that it's a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction to put the film of the week in front. Implicit importance, if you will. Maybe I think too long-term, but the novel and the film may or may not have lasting importance. The film will certainly have its share of headlines for this month, but will it be anything more than a mere snapshot in the history of cinema? I understand that the dab page can be slim; I guess my reasoning was to present both topics on equal footing, especially prior to the film's release, making navigation objective. It seems like the other objective approach is what Sleaves suggested above, to put the novel article in forefront since it was the launching point for the film. Yet this seems to make the novel pretty important... many great films have been made out of obscure stories. Can we say for sure about this here? With the novel being recent, Google News Search shows that the film has led to some focus on the novel. All these circumstances is why I've pursued "equal footing" with such articles. And believe me, I'm not worried about my page creation statistics... I can't even remember how to look that up, just my usual edit count. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Brecrewer makes a pretty good point, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. Hatnotes should suffice at the top of each article and, in spite of rightful claims of recentism, I think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to make the simplest search term point to the most visited and edited article. The film article should still be named Body of Lies (film) and Body of Lies should only be a redirect. There is no reason why at some later point in time (a year or so from now, once there are other films to edit and this one is put on the proverbial backburner) we can't redirect Body of Lies back to the novel if that is consensus at that time. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A whole page is move is unnecessary. One thing, however. Only one article needs a hatnote, not both. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more thing I found out. There's another novel by Iris Johansen with the same name. I guess in light of this, keeping Body of Lies as a redirect would be the best idea, if someone wishes to start another article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean to say "keeping Body of Lies as a disambiguation would be the best idea" instead of "keeping Body of Lies as a redirect would be the best idea"? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant redirect, with an option for dab in future. The Johansen novel was published in '02 and there hasn't been any article yet, nor do I see a possibility of one being created (no strong judgments here). Although if there is feeling that the '02 novel be mentioned, we can link it from Body of Lies (novel). Or create an elaborate hatnote on this page. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:D#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links? states "if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used", so a 2-term disambig page is OK, if it's at the topic name itself. This is what should be done if agreement can't be reached on which is primary, and my preferred option, as both are too recent to determine which is primary. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Neither strikes me as the most prominent; indeed, neither has been around long enough for that kind of judgement call to be made by anyone. There is absolutely no harm in keeping Body of Lies as a disambiguation page for now. We're not writing this encyclopedia overnight; if one of them ultimately lodges itself in the popular conciousness more than the other, then there's no prejudice against reopening this discussion at a later date. Steve ^{T • C} 07:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that both are too recent to allow us to pick a primary article based on perceived importance or notability. But for the purposes of providing the gretest benefit both to our readers and to our editors, I think that consideration should be given to the one article whose traffic flow is 13 times greater than the other article's. The redirect does not have to be permanent and it shouldn't have to imply importance of the subject, merely it should be a tool of convenience for the 93% of people typing in the search term "Body of Lies" and expecting to see the article about the film. Another solution might be to use Body of Lies as a redirect to Body of Lies (film) and have a hatnote at the top of the film article that links to Body of Lies (disambiguation) that lists all three current dab entries. Again, the redirect can be changed in a year or so from now, it need not be permanent. SWik78 (talk • contribs)

This keeps getting more interesting... Body of Lies (soundtrack) was created. I would prefer for the soundtrack article to have been a section of the film article as it may be too early to determine if a separate soundtrack article, one that uses a citation from the film article, is really warranted. To be honest, I think Rogerb67 made the case with the dab information that he cited... while a disambiguation page with two tangible articles is pretty slim, it is still completely acceptable. I think a couple of editors have noted that recentism may be a factor. Maybe later on, if the film is shown to be historically relevant such as being an example of terrorism in cinema, it could move to the forefront. One example of bucking the two-article dab trend is Road to Perdition, a film article with a hatnote to Road to Perdition (comics). I proposed that setup, and it was some time after the film came out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sikorsky Cypher is actually KH-11 Satellite

--Keelz85 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)I would just lke to point out that in the description of the plot it is mentioned that a sikorsky Cypher UAV is used to track Ferris when in the end scene of the movie it is identified via digital writing that it is a KH-11 recon satallite.

War on Terror?

"...set in context of the Middle East and the war on terror..."

I think it should say "war on terrorism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.182.180 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Body of Lies (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: Found and fixed one.[4] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   He meets Nizar, a member prepared to offer information in return for asylum in America. "a member" of what?

   Hoffman, his superior in Washington, whom The New Yorker interpreted as "an American consumer of advanced technology and vast amounts of food", detached at home in Washington, D.C., and at the CIA in Virginia, is more machiavellian: he authorizes deceit, double-crossing and violence by telephone and without scruple. This sentence is over-long and convoluted. Break down and simplify.

   ''By contrast, the Americans use sophisticated communication (Hoffman and Ferris speak regularly on the phone) The phone sophisticated?

   I see your point here, but when you think about it one is at home at dawn in America, and the other is in the middle of dusty gun-fights in the middle east, and they can speak clearly to each other instantaneously. In terms of history, this is quite advanced. The point is clearly made in the film and picked up on my reviewers. I'll try and re-word.--Ktlynch (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Right, I get it. No problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   The shoot lasted sixty-five days, from September to December 2007, and was filmed in the United States and Morocco, in which scenes set in ten different countries were filmed. Clumsy, please rephrase.

   I made some minor copy-edits.[5]

   Complies sufficiently with the MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced to RS, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage without unnecessary minutiae

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitable FUR, licensing and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for a close reading. I've dealt with those apart from the phone one (explained above). Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the fixes, I am happy to list this as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Silly section title dispute

User:Ktlynch insists this go through the talk page, even though two editors (myself and User:Polisher of Cobwebs (who initiated the correction)) disagree with his interpretation of what is standard for Wikipedia film articles. The section about Plot is currently listed as Plot synopsis ... ugh, this is silly ... to conform with the VAST MAJORITY of other film articles, we (Polisher of Cobwebs and I) form a De facto consensus and therefore deem it appropriate without further objection (besides Ktlynch) will change the section header in accordance with the rest of Wikipedia. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe many more articles use "Plot" than "Plot synopsis". There is a discussion at WikiProject Film's talk page about fixing these section headings, and everyone supported using "Plot". The discussion can be seen here. WP:FILMPLOT does say "Plot" or "Plot summary", but I think "Plot" is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There can't be consensus on something when it has not yet been discussed. Many articles on film do simply say "Plot", but there is no requirement that all articles use the same section titles. In fact, one of wikipedia's principles is that there are no hard and fast rules, your attempt to institutionalise something which is a poor practice is actually detrimental to the encyclopedia. I used "Plot synopsis" when writing the article because I believe that it is the most accurate description of what follows: a prose description of events depicted in the film. Simply writing "plot" could mean an analysis of the plot, or reference to its cinematic structure. You can prefer "Plot" if you wish, but you cannot say that "Plot synopsis" is incorrect. WP guidelines on plot summaries, in film or fiction generally, make no stipulation as to what such sections should be called, indeed "Plot summary" is listed as a one of the common headings (contradicting your claim of hegemony), and "synopsis" is just a synonym of "summary". Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter to me what heading this article uses. All the candidates are fairly interchangeable. I would not use "Plot synopsis" personally, though, because it indicates brevity to me. Studios release official synopses for films all the time, and these are conveyed in one paragraph for the most part. (Limitless (film) is one such example.) "Plot summary" does not indicate that kind of brevity, and "Plot" really is just understandable shorthand for that. (I can't ever recall seeing a section about analysis or cinematic structure using a "Plot" heading.) I pointed out the WT:FILM discussion as an indicator that editors prefer shorthand. None of the possible headings are detrimental, but the IP has a basis for his/her argument. It's just a matter of if anyone really cares that much. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The brevity or not of connotations of "synopsis" or "summary" is a moot point: both mean brief by definition and such a précis is supposed to be brief. Secondly, you are thinking like an experienced wikipedia editor, not a reader. The point still stands: "Plot synopsis" is a more accurate description of the contents of the section. It was not incorrect. There is not requirement for conformity with every other wikipedia article, in fact, by reducing the space for experimentation different practices such conformity institutionalises an inferior status quo. Ip 70.15.11.44 's insistence is a stylistic choice, normally edits such as that to established articles need a substantive reason. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Plot synopsis" actually has a sense of redundancy, if we are to discuss pure definitions. "Synopsis" is defined as "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc." It is obvious that a "synopsis" will be of the plot, either in a Wikipedia article about the film or at the official site about the film. Studios write "Synopsis", not "Plot synopsis". In contrast, a "summary" is more ambiguous in whether or not it summarizes the plot. That's why "Plot summary" is acceptable. In addition, to reiterate my point about studios using the term, they provide a synopsis—a brief summary—of the film in one paragraph. In articles about upcoming films, it makes sense to reserve space for "Synopsis" when referencing what a studio provides, then when the film comes out, we can provide a not-as-brief summary titled "Plot" or "Plot summary". In general, it does not matter much because it will be obvious how long such a section will be, but I think there are good reasons to use the other options instead of "Plot synopsis". If you truly feel that editors who endorse renaming "Plot synopsis" to "Plot" are being destructive, please share your thoughts at the discussion linked above. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I will settle for "Synopsis". Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

First paragraph: 'Frustrated by his elusiveness, differences in their approaches ...' This is a dangling participle. Clearly, it cannot be the differences in their approaches that are frustrated. Who or what is frustrated is ambiguous at best. Furry Canary (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, Furry Canary. I made a slight change, let me know what you think. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Coelho?

Paulo Coelho is currently listed as one of the authors of the original book upon which this film was based. However, I've been unable to adduce any evidence via Google/Wiki search to support this claim; indeed, as far as I can tell, it's simply some sort of vandalism, unless there's something I'm missing.75.64.182.25 (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good spot. That's definitely vandalism. I think it has been removed now. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)