Revision as of 19:25, 14 July 2009 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,631 editsm Dating comment by Inurhead - "re: release date"← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:49, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,677 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
(354 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
⚫ |
{{Film|class=start|American-task-force=yes|War-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
==Editing BADLY needed== |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
Can someone who isn't a shill for this movie or a overhyper fan of the stars get this into decent shape? Opening graphs should be short, all the reviews need to be moved into a critical reaction section. |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|
| action1date = April 18, 2010 |
|
|
| action1link = Talk:The Hurt Locker/GA1 |
|
|
| action1result = listed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 356904962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
⚫ |
] (]) 07:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| itndate = |
|
|
| topic = film |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|listas=Hurt Locker, The|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|War-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USFilm=yes|USFilm-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Library of Congress|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Films=yes|US=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied | from=The Hurt Locker|to=List of awards and nominations received by The Hurt Locker|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=334665223&oldid=334663820}} |
|
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:The Hurt Locker/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Beckham == |
|
:Done. Could still use a trim, though, to edit down the reactions. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 08:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously some confusion over whether Beckham returns. If he returned, where did he go, and why wouldn't James be at all surprised or tell Beckham why he should leave? |
|
== Lead section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: credits, it doesn't matter if they used the same actor for Beckham and another seller, they can be different characters. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Regarding the use of the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, I do not think that it is appropriate per ]. First of all, the phrase is vague; what award, and what kind of award? It does not specify a difference between Best Picture at the Academy Awards and Best Summer Film at the Teen Choice Awards. WP:LEAD states, "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Also, "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." This is why the specific addendum was added to ]; a lot of articles erroneously start out this way. Same with the usage of taglines and their promotional language. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Beckham is NOT the boy who was turned into a body bomb. If you read the original script (unfortunately I don't know to to link it as a reference via footnote because it's downloadable only; ), in which "Beckham" is nicknamed "Pele" instead, you will see it is indeed him who runs up to James before the scene in which Eldridge is taken away on the helicopter. A credible source would be needed if the article is to say that somewhere along the line the filmmakers changed their minds and made this into a character who was not Beckham. - <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">] <small>]</small></span> 10:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
== Year of Release == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point made. The script is definite, the film is unclear. ] (]) 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
It's just one of the points of contention, but let's actually talk about it. Several users (including me) prefer 2008, noting that the film was released in a limited manner in 2008. Several sources ( use 2008 as the release date. Others, including Inurhead, prefer 2009, saying that the film was released in the US in 2009 and that the limited release doesn't count. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:My friends and I understood the film showed that James had made a mistake - when he saw Beckham at the end, he realized that he had been mistaken in thinking the body he'd seen earlier and been so disturbed by was Beckham. We didn't think it was unclear.--] (]) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
After some wandering around, I found ], which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. ] (]) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::To say that it was "unclear" is a personal interpretation of the film (primary source of the summary), which is not recommended for inclusion in the summary. And, as you can see, there are other interpretations that differ. If there is secondary coverage in reliable secondary sources about this ongoing debate, which would indicate that perhaps the film was intentionally leaving this scene to be "unclear", then the summary should indeed be tweaked to reflect this, and another portion of the article can go into more detail. As of now, I don't see much around the web to indicate that this is the case. - <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">] <small>]</small></span> 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
:] specifically says that the release date should be based on when it was released in the country that produced the film (there is no hierarchy placed on that in that WP), and specifically states an "English-speaking country" (since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages, not the Italian version). This is an American film. It is the standard that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has adhered to for decades that a release date is considered to be the date the film is released in Los Angeles, California ("rule 2"). AMPAS is a higher authority than unpaid Misplaced Pages freelance contributors on this issue. So, for all lists of "2009 films" which Misplaced Pages readers will be likely searching and choosing Academy Award nominees from, it would be wrong and even misleading to exclude ''The Hurt Locker'' which is a front runner by many critics accounts in this 2009 season. It seems the intention of those who are trying to list the film as "2008" (based on limited film festival previews in 2008), are trying to do damage to the film's viewership and odds at receiving awards, which also could result in fiscal harm to the film. That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:In my personal opinion, the second kid was not Beckham because he talked differently, and his rapport with the Sgt. was much different. I believe it was showing that the man who was Beckhams boss was spying on the soldiers and he was trying to get a cookie-cutter kid, one who can speak english and become pals with the G.I.'s (like the Sgt. was). ] (]) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's exactly what I came away with upon seeing the film, but your impression and mine do not trump the script. I happen to like this shared version better. ] (]) 18:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::My impression of this issue was as ] has described it. But what indicated that the boss was a spy was: that he packed up so quickly, because he very well understood the English sentences of James and thus understood that he was "burned" (discoverd). -- ] (]) 08:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anecdotal Entries in Response Among Veterans == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not totally familiar with the guidelines[REDACTED] has on adding anecdotal evidence, but clearly there should be some kind of heuristic for deciding what anecdotal evidence should be presented and what should not. In the section titled "Response Among Veterans" several individual's blogs are mentioned. If I start listing every veteran who has analyzed this film in a blog, we are going to have a very long list. If there are no objections, I would suggest that information concerning veteran's responses to the film be limited to articles written by reputable journalists or others who have done some kind of research on the matter. |
|
⚫ |
] (]) 05:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds like a great idea. There are many journalists who have written about the veteran-blogger responses (good and bad) and I think those articles are much more appropriate than a few hand-picked blogger responses. ] (]) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think: Truth and probable truth is more important than whether one can cite a reference. If a veteran says so and so about the accuracy I would trust him. -- ] (]) 08:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
Obviously some confusion over whether Beckham returns. If he returned, where did he go, and why wouldn't James be at all surprised or tell Beckham why he should leave?
Re: credits, it doesn't matter if they used the same actor for Beckham and another seller, they can be different characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.17.73 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not totally familiar with the guidelines[REDACTED] has on adding anecdotal evidence, but clearly there should be some kind of heuristic for deciding what anecdotal evidence should be presented and what should not. In the section titled "Response Among Veterans" several individual's blogs are mentioned. If I start listing every veteran who has analyzed this film in a blog, we are going to have a very long list. If there are no objections, I would suggest that information concerning veteran's responses to the film be limited to articles written by reputable journalists or others who have done some kind of research on the matter.
76.120.195.191 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. There are many journalists who have written about the veteran-blogger responses (good and bad) and I think those articles are much more appropriate than a few hand-picked blogger responses. Michaelyw (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think: Truth and probable truth is more important than whether one can cite a reference. If a veteran says so and so about the accuracy I would trust him. -- Steue (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)