Talk:Tideland (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

reaction

"horrendous slash(/) excellent"? the @#$% does that mean? neither word would be appropriate, anyway, as (1) 'horrendous' would imply the reviewers sucked, (2) 'excellent' would imply that any were very favorable, and (3) neither of these extreme characterizations belongs in an encyclopedia without some serious justification. if i didn't suspect y'all looked down on such actions, i'd delete the section wholesale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.6.3 (talk • contribs) 12:50, November 4, 2006

NPOV?

I felt the "critical reaction" section was getting a little POV and tried to tone it down a little, only to have all my changes immediately reverted by an anonymous user. Instead of getting into a revert war over an article I have nothing invested in, I'll list what I think might be problematic and hopefully other people can step in and decide what might or might not need to be changed.

The text implies several times that "discerning moviegoers" have embraced the film. This is based on the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Amazon. Not only does this seem unencylopedic, but they look pretty mediocre to me (the IMDB score, for example is the lowest of any Gilliam film other than Jabberwocky, and virtually all DVDs on Amazon get at least 3.5 stars).

You're simply incorrect about the IMDB score: Brothers Grimm stands below Tideland at 5.9, Jabberwocky 6.1, with Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen both at 6.9 just barely above Tideland. "Discerning moviegoers" was used in the context of mentioning Rotten Tomatoes and movie blogs. Perhaps a better word than "discerning" could have been used and, in fact, I'll remove it altogether in favor of "registered". However, I'll point out that the intent of its usage wasn't meant to suggest those moviegoers were more "discerning" than the critics; rather, it was meant to convey the fact that the RT and movie blog users were more invested than your average moviegoer. As for calling the IMDB score mediocre or unimportant, I will take issue with that, especially when we're talking about 6.7 out of 10 users favoring a film that has largely been regarded as universally disliked (that's 3,173 IMDB user votes, by the way...hardly a mediocre number for a film that hasn't been widely seen until its recent DVD release). Honestly, I don't much care for the film myself, but I do believe that, in this case, the divide between the audience and the critics is an important part of its story. Or, perhaps, the comprise would be to remove the entire Rotten Tomatoes reference altogether. As for the Amazon mention, I suspect to have it there or not doesn't matter one way or the other. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

The info about box office receipts was deleted, even though I had sourced it at boxofficemojo.com.

I don't believe I deleted that, but if I did it was a mistake. It should be there. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

The statement that the film was popularly and critically successful in Japan needs to be sourced.

Agreed. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

Listing the scores of all of Owen Gleiberman's other Gilliam reviews, while factually correct, seems intended to imply that the critic is somehow incapable of giving Gilliam a "fair" review (or if not, why is it all there?). The statement that Roeper and Scott had given Gilliam positive reviews of his previous work was deleted.

It might seem to you that the implication is that Gleiberman can't give Gilliam a "fair" review, or it might seem, as it does to me, that he liked Tideland much less than other Gilliam films he has reviewed. As for the Roper & Scott additions that were deleted, I don't believe I took issue with this information and removed it. That said, aside from Roeper's slightly favorable review of Brothers Grimm, what other films by Gilliam have he and Scott given positive reviews? I couldn't find a single one. If you want it there you need to source that information somehow. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

Statements aattributed to Gilliam need to be sourced.

Agreed. --User:211.9.154.70 25 April 2007

--142.103.211.144 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amorous feelings were reversed...

Events take on an even darker tone when Dickens's amorous feelings for the much younger Jeliza-Rose start to creep into their child-like relationship

I thought that it was Jeliza who initiated that in a sort of child-play way, and Dickens was uncomfortable with it at first? Brentt 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just seen the film, I think a better way to express these edgy scenes would be:

"Another elemwnt of dramatic tension is added as the chaste love between Jeliza-Rose and Dickens begins to find physical expression."

I leave this as a suggestion, should anyone else agree that this would impeove the article, 71.55.106.189 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in article

The article needs a spoiler warning! The ending of the film is revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.75.194 (talk • contribs) 11:21, July 17, 2007

Spoilers are frequently given in the plot section. Best to avoid reading if you don't want to know what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WesUGAdawg (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Gilliam's POV?

My reaction to this film was like that of most viewers -- a highly unpleasant (to say the least) tale of a girl experiencing a psychotic break because she can't handle the horrific events she's experienced.

But the DVD includes a supplement in which Gilliam explains that his intent was quite the opposite. The story is "positive" -- it shows a girl surviving -- and eventually exiting -- an impossible situation.

Why isn't this in the article? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tideland (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tideland (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011225256/http://goldentrailer.com:80/gta7.html to http://www.goldentrailer.com/gta7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tideland (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071225000554/http://www.caps-a-holic.com:80/vergleich.php?vergleichID=548 to http://www.caps-a-holic.com/vergleich.php?vergleichID=548

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, is this really a 'science fiction' (-fantasy) movie ?188.106.183.54 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incest?

"It is also revealed that Dell and Noah are not only "kissers," but also brother and sister, after Jeliza-Rose finds the trinkets in the dead mother's room to belong to her father."

I absolutely didn't have the impression the trinkets imply them to be siblings, but long-lost lovers. If there's no better explanation backing up the supposed incest part, this portion should be removed. 2A02:8070:487:9AE0:D02E:EA8A:906B:50C8 (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have now removed it. TGGP (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the controversy?

After we have been told that the FIPRESCI jury's decision "provoked controversial reactions", the next paragraph opens with, "In response to the controversy surrounding the film's FIPRESCI win ...". But we are never told what "the" controversy was about. Naturally, any jury decision will leave some people unhappy , but that does not a controversy make. Either more should be said about the issue, or less. --Lambiam 19:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]