Talk:Rampart (film)

who is actually "starring"

IMDB says Steve Buscemi. Other pages mention both Ice Cube and Woody Harrelson. We need to find a solid reliable source for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrelson is going to play the cop according to Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118024124?refCatId=13), at the moment we know that. IMDb puts Buscemi on the top of the cast randomly, but there's no source that claims he's going to star on a lead role, all sites mention him just as a member of the cast.--Machete kills (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's good, Variety is certainly a better source than IMDB. Looks like Ice Cube could be considered a co-star as well. I have to admit I was having trouble imagining Buscemi as a hard-boiled cop in an anti-gang unit. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reddit mention

There needs to be more about the Reddit AMA being a horribly failed PR stunt. I recommend this article. http://www.observer.com/2012/02/woody-harrelson-and-the-no-good-very-bad-reddit-ama/ Mojokabobo (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article I recommended was actually already what was used in order to reference the reddit AMA, so I'm going to go ahead and include a little bit of info that was actually the subject of the article. Mojokabobo (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In about two minutes, the Reddit mention will have absolutely no relevancy. In fact, it seems to be included primarily as a self-congratulatory exaggeration. Should be excluded. --96.235.34.41 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This seems to be a smallish film and a smallish article. The Reddit thing was pretty big and most people who use that site with some frequency (millions uniques per month I would guess) know it as a meme. I would support a small section on the PR fiasco.96.50.10.234 (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It, at best, would be given a sentence long mention in a marketing section, IF that. It seems entirely like an attempt at self promotion, this is not a major controversy or something that impacted the release of the film.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is yet to be seen. The film has not been widely released as far as I know, so we will see what kind of effect this bad pr stunt has on its bottom line. In any case, if the quotes from the AMA and the article are to be used, it should be referenced that the community at large viewed the quotes as being disingenuous. It's against n:pov to just omit the reaction that these quotes invoked in the community. Mojokabobo (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, Darkwarriorblake, it is debatable whether this wasn't a major controversy... There are millions of Reddit users, and thousands upon thousands of those users have spent the last 3 days mocking Woody Harrelson for this stunt.Mojokabobo (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't belong in the article at all, it's trivia of the most uninteresting kind. If any reliable sources are even still mentioning it next week, then maybe you'll have a point, but as it is 'some guys on the internet are mocking the actor for an interview he gave about the movie' is not important information. Robofish (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What RoboFish said. No need to mention it. Especially since the Reddit AMA involved a LOT of libelous nonsense. Lots42 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We are still hearing reports in the media about Woody's disastrous attempt to promote this film on Reddit several months later (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/molly-ringwald-reddit-interview-ew/index.html). This was not a trivial event since this online interview showed the power of the internet to influence public opinion regarding actors and their movies. I recommend creating a marketing section in this article and adding a reference to a reliable news website which explains what transpired such as the following: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096768/Woody-Harrelson-falls-victim-Reddit-disastrous-Ask-interview.html Mistercontributer (talk) 9:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Reddit AMA deserves to be mentioned because it made a big splash in the media at the time, and is still relevant on one of the world's most popular web sites. To this day, celebrities who do interviews on Reddit mention or mock the "Rampart" interview: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wc33h/iama_comedian_and_musician_danny_tamberelli_i_was/c5c33kt --76.102.87.128 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite where it appeared in the media. Yahoo? Time? Wired? Entertainment Weekly? Lots42 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean it made a big splash on Reddit. Think outside the Reddit bubble. --SubSeven (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One year later, and it's still referenced (more than the film itself it seems). The section devoted to it under Marketing is doing a good job of summarizing it currently. 12.46.106.78 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Based on this article's revision history, and also based on the above discussion, there were many attempts to censor out any references to that incident, until the ongoing references in the news media more than justified the Reddit mention in this article. -Mistercontributer (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot needs to be expanded

The plot is underdeveloped and needs to be expanded, moreover it should be rewritten.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Reddit fiasco" really worth the space anymore?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Rampart_(film)#The_Reddit_mention

Look, I get that this "issue" may have seemed like a big deal at the time, but isn't it time the lack of notability of this supposed fiasco be recognized? A lot of mentions of how "big a splash" was made at the time it actually happened now seem a bit hollow. It's now over ten years since the debate over the mention occurred here. I dare say it's no longer a notable event. Even the cited source linked to on this talk page, which is nothing more than a brief and UN notable mention from a reddit user in some random unrelated thread over an entirely unrelated subject that is now more than 13 years old.

I believe strongly the entire entry should be removed due to it's lack of notability for the following reasons (other than those already mentioned):

First and foremost, when I read the thread it is plainly obvious the intent of Woody and his staff in creating it WAS to promote the movie. It should have been blatantly obvious to Reddit users that is exactly what he was doing. The question posed by the Reddit user who brought up the Prom was a blatantly obvious ambush. The question isn't based on anything that can be substantiated. A few reports were made, not many. It really didn't garner national attention, much less worldwide.

Next, let's look at the content of the article portion devoted to this event. The entire portion consists of a total of 261 words, 157 of which are entirely devoted to justifying the entry's existence. ALL of those 157 words come from a web site that I dare say very few people have ever even heard of, much less read.

That leaves a mere 104 words to describing what actually happened. That means 60% of the entry is devoted to explaining why the entry is notable. Doesn't that seem rather out of balance? If that much of an entry has to be spelled out for anyone, doesn't that mean the mention really isn't notable at all? I think it does. If it were notable, not so much space would be necessary to explain why it is. Seriously, if you brought this up with anyone in your daily life, who of them would ever had heard of this matter?

In addition, where is the evidence that this Reddit thread had any influence at all on the success or failure of the film? None is offered in the article. That alone might support the notability of this event. I'm not seeing it. I really feel this entry needs far stronger justification for its inclusion in the article.

It's been over a decade. This is a nothing burger today and should be removed. That's my take. 2601:19E:8200:1840:49FF:3D77:BDF5:B556 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to follow policies and guidelines about referencing such content. This is not about notability, because notability on Wikipedia is about whether or not a topic should have its own article. This is more about if the information is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:UNDUE. A lot of films have primarily contemporary coverage about its production, marketing, and reception that don't necessarily get discussed in retrospect. We don't dump all of that just because we have not seen any follow-up after a decade or whatever. However, I do agree that this section could use improvement. I think that quoting Mediaite at length is WP:UNDUE, and we could remove that paragraph and just keep to the first one. Then perhaps we could remove the subsection heading "Reddit AMA" and have just two paragraphs left under "Marketing"? That would frame it better with less "prominent placement" per WP:UNDUE. Per MOS:FILMMARKETING, such sections are appropriate if secondary sources exist to cover it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks for the reply, but my argument has much more to do with the content than its notability. When nearly two thirds of the entry is spent justifying its own existence, that seems undue to me. It also indicates to me that if you have to use that much to justify it, it's most likely not really important anyway.

But here's the real issue. This all started from a single anonymous reddit user who made an accusation that, more than ten years later, has yet to be substantiated Virtually every single article that came out after that up until 2012 (that I can find ~ sorry but tic-toc doesn't count) does nothing but parrot what happened on reddit. ALL of the articles I've read so far (Forbes normally being the most reliable source, but in this case I see it as unreliable since it simply parrots what every other article has) do nothing but parrot the negative comments on reddit. I would delve deeper into the reddit itself but that would obviously be OR and couldn't be used. However there is such things as reasonable conclusions. No one that I can find has ever substantiated the claim made on reddit. But what's more important is that this is included under marketing of the film with the clear implication that this reddit incident actually had some sort of impact on the film's revenue. No such connection is made in the article. It's a thing that happened, a blip on the radar that no one seems to have any evidence demonstrating any impact at all. That lack of relevancy. It happened, Okay, so what? Show me why it matters and how it relates to the film. Quoting mediaite definitely doesn't do that. Nothing really can. If this were an article about Internet marketing techniques then it is relevant. I just don't think it is here. It's not related to the film itself.2601:19E:8200:1840:48E:3B8D:7F4C:4568 (talk) 2601:19E:8200:1840:48E:3B8D:7F4C:4568 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content is related to the film, the actor, and Reddit itself, in different ways. It's also covered at r/IAmA and Woody Harrelson too. Here, it relates to promoting the film. The content could be presented differently, with less focus on the unsubstantiated accusation, but this was covered enough by multiple reliable sources to warrant a mention. It's also covered here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. So while I see the case for downsizing the amount of text, I don't see one for complete removal of any mention of this from the article. Do you want to do a WP:3O? Erik (talk | contrib) 21:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We're in agreement on quality of the content at least. Perhaps a briefer description of the event is sufficient with better sources and citations to allow users to delve deeper on their own and decide for themselves how relevant it actually is. I do think Wikipedia shouldn't be making a case one way or the other. Let the sources speak to relevance and importance. Seems good to me. I'm all in favor of it being rewritten. Nice researching by the way. I wasn't able to spend the time you did. Are you up to editing that? I can but I won't be able to for several days.2601:19E:8200:1840:48E:3B8D:7F4C:4568 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]