Jump to content

Talk:The Fog (2005 film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
voicing my opinion
Line 33: Line 33:


[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Whenever some tries to contribute to this page it is undone and replaced with a load of condensed crap that is apparently within some guideline some idiot in an office with no life has made up. I am sick of it you should be able to put whatever you want within reason of course nothing rude obviously but if it helps with the plot then why shouldn't it be allowed to be used. This 700 word non sense is the biggest load of garabage I have ever heard what happens when the article is very long and needs to be over 700 words? The Fog and Gone with the Wind are very different length plots but are they both going to be 700 words if that's the maximum liit and the Fog is already 700? It's about time somebody stands up to these idiotic rules!

Revision as of 17:31, 26 July 2013

WikiProject iconFilm: American Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconHorror Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Baffle gab1978, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on July 22, 2013.

Plot Summary

This movie is a "not to be seen" one, a total waste of time.(from Sami,may 20. 2006)

I added a cleanup tag to the plots summary section. It needs to be rewritten and currently reads like someone's middle school book report. Gront 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Could you add some more info? I've watched half of the movie and didn't see the 1871 boat murder in the beginning. Edward Roussac (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[]

Remake vs. Original

There should be a section of this article analyzing the differences with the remake and the original. Bronks 15 Jan 2006

Edits

I removed "one of my personal favorites" from Selma Blair's name, because it's completely irrelevent. Also removed the two conflicting "trivia" notes regarding who was slated to play Stevie Wayne - they directly contradict one another.

Mistakes section

The mistakes section seems to be a copy fo the copyrighted site http://www.moviemistakes.com/film5310, so I remvoed the section and added an external link to it. RJFJR 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[]

TV killer

I was told some people call this movie the "TV killer" because most LCD TVs cannot display the fog scenes very well. Is it true? I've never seen this movie. -- Toytoy 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[]

DeRay Davis Audition

"Before DeRay Davis auditioned and blew producers away." Did Davis write this himself? This is extremely POV, even more so than the Selma Blair line and should be deleted or have a citation added.==Hypermagic 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Fog 2005 film.jpg

Image:The Fog 2005 film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Plot

Whenever some tries to contribute to this page it is undone and replaced with a load of condensed crap that is apparently within some guideline some idiot in an office with no life has made up. I am sick of it you should be able to put whatever you want within reason of course nothing rude obviously but if it helps with the plot then why shouldn't it be allowed to be used. This 700 word non sense is the biggest load of garabage I have ever heard what happens when the article is very long and needs to be over 700 words? The Fog and Gone with the Wind are very different length plots but are they both going to be 700 words if that's the maximum liit and the Fog is already 700? It's about time somebody stands up to these idiotic rules!