Talk:Carnage (2011 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon 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 project 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.

Legal inability to travel to the US[edit]

I believe this statement is patently false. He may be arrested upon arrival, but he would not be prevented from entering the country. Does anyone have a problem with removal of the statement? I think either the case should be linked, or the legal issue not presented in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talkcontribs) 05:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is 'moot'. Polanski would be a fool to attempt entry into the U.S. until his case is 'resolved'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


This is without doubt the worst ever plot-description I've seen...

Agreed. A complete joke in both senses of that word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty horrible... I edited it and I think it's an improvement but it's still lacking in detail and I didn't include the ending of the thriving hamster and the boys working it out with no aid from their "maniac" parents but at least it's a sensible skeleton that other editors can flesh out later if they wish. Pottsduck (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored details; "confrontation", "various circumstances" are vague, "all-out war" is excessive, they do not kill each other. Feel free to merge your content in. I added the ending.--Patrick (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Patrick, I agree that "all-out war" wasn't the correct verbiage to use so I've changed that as well as given detail as to what the various circumstances were. However, I disagree with you on the use of "confrontation" considering the confrontation in the film is vague itself. There is no audible dialog during the scene so we don't know the exact details of it, only that it "results in one boy hitting the other with a stick." The intent of my edit was to rectify a plot description that wasn't very good as evidenced by the complaints on this talk page. So, it was disappointing to see a well thought out edit deleted en masse because of a couple wording issues, to be replaced with the original description which readers were objecting to in it's entirety. Pottsduck (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The plot was and is not too long, there is no reason to leave out so much of the information I provided.--Patrick (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing has been said, by me or anyone else, about the plot description being too long. In actuality, the new plot description is longer than the one you gave. I wasn't aware that you'd written the original plot description since your user name didn't appear in the edit list until you got rid of the one that I provided so I apologize if I've insulted any pride of ownership of yours. I also appreciate the information you provided. The problem with the original plot description is simply that it is a run-on paragraph of details, some of which are inaccurate and/or written in a manner that is confusing or nonsensical. One example would be writing about Nancy vomiting immediately following the sentence about her being upset over Michael releasing the hamster into the street, which would lead anyone reading it to think that is the reason she vomited. There was just no context given to all the details you provided and that made for poor article flow. Also, the major themes of the plot were absent from the description so anyone reading the article that hasn't seen the film would know some things about what happens in it but be clueless as to what it's really about. So, those were the reasons for the plot description revamp: to give context to all the details in an effort to avoid confusing the reader and to provide good overall article flow. Pottsduck (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Giving context to all the details would be fine, instead many details have been deleted.--Patrick (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just watched on DVD, including 'rewinds' for details. For what it is, and is supposed to be, not too bad. I have 'touched-up' plot in a few places, and added to 'Production' -- I'm sure someone (i.e., the Wiki 'overseers') will object, as they always do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)