Talk:Zodiac (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zodiac (film) article.

Article policies
Featured article star Zodiac (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Plot

The plot section of this wiki has been corrupted with sexual slang. please fix. -teh seth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.125.207.203 (talk) 2007-03-30T04:25:03

do you where the zodiaz movie is taking place, where are they filming the movie ???

Jesus, san Francisco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.67.117 (talk) 2006-01-08T08:02:51

[edit] Reviews

I changed the information regarding the U.K. Guardian critic David Thompson. It was previously David Thomson, which is a U.S. film critic, while David Thompson is a U.K. film critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.133.32 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I removed the images because the formatting looked terrible with the film infobox. Please re-insert them if you can make it look decent. -wadems 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In the film, does anyone know the year in which Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal)and Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) meet in a diner. The line "Did you see 'Dirty Harry'? ... Finish your book" is spoken. If the scene takes place before 1982 (I think it does), then there is a goof. A gum ball machine is selling Runts candy, which were not sold until 1982. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.60.50 (talk) 2007-03-04T22:56:58

[edit] New Title

The film's official release title is Chronicles. I don't know how to change this. Can someone with more expereince editing make this switch?Aglie 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide some evidence for that. I know that Chronicles was used for a time during production, but I am pretty certain it was dropped. The release date that has just come out was certainly for Zodiac. Rje 08:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23688 Aglie 06:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing Footnotes

There's a lot of redundancy in the References. Check out Help:Footnotes to see how you can compress multiple cites under one reference. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's been fixed. --Count Ringworm 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for use

Enjoy! Alientraveller 09:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budget

This pages lists the budget at "more than $60 million" and later as "$70 million". I looked elsewhere on the internet at the figure $85 million (estimated) seems to appear a little more than these two earlier figures, but can anyone confirm the budget, or at least a better estimated figure? 58.169.165.32 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Lucy

New York Times says $75 million budget, but that it was filmed under budget. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB Top 250?

This movie made less than $4 million net, but is on the IMDB Top 250. I'm supposing that this is determined by user rating, and not box office sales? --MosheA 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Top 250 is based on user ratings and is completely unreliable. The Simpsons Movie was on the top 250, so was Transformers, so was 300. I'd suggest looking to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic for a more reasonable critical balance. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Referencing & Trivia

Pong is seen being played in the boat scene. I have included this reference in a wikipedia page on Pong, but am unsure whether to include in this page. Newbie, sorry! --Retrodouggy 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • References 18 and 19 don't have a retrieval date and it doesn't say what they are, fix that ;) . Otherwise, good work!, i'm listing as GA. Yamanbaiia 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and the promotion. I have fixed those two References. --J.D. 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Lead

Is "a Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. joint production" really the very first thing that should be said about this film in the lead sentence? I don't think so. I would move that phrase back at least a sentence at minimum, i.e. "Zodiac is a 2007 American film directed by David Fincher and based on Robert Graysmith's non-fiction books Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked. This Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. joint production stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr." --Melty girl (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thanks for catching this. I've changed it around per your suggestion. --J.D. (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

Here is a link to an interview that has potential info to be integrated into the article:

--J.D. (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

--J.D. (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Although I'm not particularly familiar with the technical aspects of filmmaking, I believe this is a contradiction:

  • The introduction of this article claims that the film was shot entirely digitally: “During filming, Fincher employed the digital Thomson Viper Filmstream camera to shoot the film. This was the first time this camera was used to shoot an entire Hollywood feature film”
  • In the section titled “Principal Photography”, we learn that there were parts of the film NOT shot digitally: “Contrary to popular belief, Zodiac was not shot entirely digitally; traditional high-speed film cameras were used for slow-motion murder sequences.” The author of this statement cites the DVD itself.

So what is going on here? Can someone shed some light on this situation? Notecardforfree (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I've fixed the Lead paragraph to reflect the accurate statement in the Principal photography section. --J.D. (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)