Talk:The Rains Came: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:03, 14 May 2007

Novels Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Film Stub‑class

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I cut the line that claims that most experts would agree that the special effects in Oz were more spectacular. I'm an expert, and I don't agree. What is the reference for that? Also, the article failed to mention that the film also beat Gone with the Wind in special effects. Chandler75 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut even more. I don't think it's necessary to mention any of the films it beat, especially when it's supported by the weasely worded "most audiences". Until someone takes a poll.... It's enough to say that it won. I watched this film only a few weeks ago and I was surprised, having not seen it for some years, at how sophisticated the special effects were considering how long ago it was made. Rossrs 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:58, 13 May 2007 edit Vanished user 986981652290e37c58ae0d2ab4d3e6c1 (talk \| contribs) 400 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:03, 14 May 2007 edit undo Rossrs (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers 34,076 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:

	I cut the line that claims that most experts would agree that the special effects in Oz were more spectacular. I'm an expert, and I don't agree. What is the reference for that? Also, the article failed to mention that the film also beat Gone with the Wind in special effects. [[User:Chandler75\|Chandler75]] 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)		I cut the line that claims that most experts would agree that the special effects in Oz were more spectacular. I'm an expert, and I don't agree. What is the reference for that? Also, the article failed to mention that the film also beat Gone with the Wind in special effects. [[User:Chandler75\|Chandler75]] 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

			:I cut even more. I don't think it's necessary to mention ''any'' of the films it beat, especially when it's supported by the [[weasel words\|weasely worded]] "most audiences". Until someone takes a poll.... It's enough to say that it won. I watched this film only a few weeks ago and I was surprised, having not seen it for some years, at how sophisticated the special effects were considering how long ago it was made. [[User:Rossrs\|Rossrs]] 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)