The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think the Evening Star source is saying the film's title was "Troika (Means Three)" -- going by the capitalization and what I know from contemporary translation practices, it seems more to me that they were translating an unfamiliar title for an Anglophone audience. Do we have any other reason to believe the film was explicitly given this title in release, such as posters that use it (especially given the known posters in the article don't?). Otherwise, we shouldn't say that.
I'm not sure this is quite right still. It doesn't seem the actual release was subtitled, going by the posters, but rather this specific advertiser chose to subtitle it when they were advertising it, which isn't that rare for films with foreign titles but doesn't imply the film itself was released under such a title. Vaticidalprophet17:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
before officially premiering on November 8th, of that same year doesn't need the comma.
I don't think the second paragraph expresses clearly enough that the film was lost for decades. "Not released on home media" doesn't rule out other screenings, and the fact Hobbs did so because he was unhappy with it (compared to more common obstacles like copyright issues) isn't clear.
various items of a symbolic nature -- in what way?
The plot itself has a note saying its constructed from materials I found which state these specifically but I found something that might help clarify it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A stark contrast to any of the entries in the film may need a source, as it's secondary analysis.
Gloria Rossi and Morgan Upton both seem maybe-plausible-enough-article-candidates that redlinks might be valuable (they had long careers, but prior to the point of many internet sources). This is optional -- redlinks are neither "mandatory nor forbidden" -- but it's a good way sometimes to point out potential holes in the encyclopedia. Vaticidalprophet17:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth re-linking Fredric Hobbs here. Also, is there a reason he's named "Carl Frederic Hobbs" in the lead?
Going off of my experience with Begotten, this is not necessary to relink this. Also Carl Frederic Hobbs is his full name, a similar situation was noted in Begotten's review which was resolved in this manner.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, but I'm thinking from a WP:DUPLINK perspective, it's useful to reiterate who he is in this section. Not mandatory, though, yeah. I'm mostly thinking about the "artist turned filmmaker Hobbs" phrase and that it doesn't flow very well. Regarding Fredric vs Carl Fredric, his article should probably have an RM if the title it's at isn't the common name. Vaticidalprophet15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Actor turned filmmaker" is grammatically inaccurate ("actor-turned-filmmaker"), but that might not be the best way to put it anyway. The rest of the paragraph makes his artistic background clear without needing to explicitly mention it.
I've made some minor copyedits here re. commas, missing words, etc. where it would've been a little nitpicky to mention them without fixing them myself.
While usually categorized as a "comedy" or "art film" by media outlets at the time of the film's release, Troika incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment. I'm not sure "while" makes sense here, as those statements aren't juxtaposing contradictory things.
with many of them making their only acting credit for the film isn't amazing, grammatically. Most of Troika's cast was unknown performers, several of whose only acting credit was the film.
Hobbs, himself starred in the film as a fictional version of himself, in addition to the characters of the "Chef", and "Fantom" doesn't need the second and third commas, or the first 'himself'.
The Thurmond sentence is something of a run-on. It would be more natural to replace the comma following "final segment of the film" with a semicolon, and restructuring the next clause from "with one commentator noting" to "one commentator noted". Also, "noted" isn't the ideal word here -- one commentator described his role as a Christ-like figure.
Hobbs later recalled filming one sequence, shot at Fort Cronkhite involving Thurmond running alongside the skyline. While filming the sequence, Hobbs claimed that during the take the military began firing a Nike missile's as an artillery exercise, ruining the shot. These sentences seem...confused. I'm not sure how best to suggest copyediting them.
Troika has been considered unobtainable for many years, with the film never being given a home video release. Given the restorations and the possibility of a future release, this sentence seems like it should be flipped to focus on the fact the film has never been released for home viewing, with the fact it was unobtainable/unscreened entirely for many years in the second clause.
This section needs some work, both prosewise and contentwise. I'll take a closer look at it, but for now I really recommend looking at WP:Copyediting reception sections. Right now the section feels a little disjointed.
Troika's commercial success would serve can just be 'served'. Having said that, this raises content questions. By what standards was it a commercial success? The threshold for a niche art film being successful is very low -- do we have some way to contextualize this?
Hobbs' resulting film, Roseland: A Fable (1970), would be a surreal philosophical satire on the porn industry itself again doesn't need 'would be' rather than 'was'.
Both films were critical and commercial failures, with Godmonster receiving little to no theatrical release, combined with behind-the-scenes conflicts with producers of both films caused Hobbs to grow discontent with the film industry, who subsequently retired from filmmaking. This sentence needs copyediting, in the same sense as the "Filming and post-production" sentences where they're quite difficult to disentangle.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.