Talk:Devil (2010 film)

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.

Untitled[edit]

This page needs to be updated with new information about the Unbreakable series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.7.69 (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

If the plot section was copied from themoviespolier.com, why don't we just cite it in the bibliography, considering that it needs to be a literal interpretation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionFury (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Does this (Footer Movies M. Night Shyamalan) footer belong in this article

the user also known as DarkArcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.162.231 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

This is a realy horribly written synopsis. It would be nice if someone would modify it. I've never seen the movie so it's not really my place, but it would be nice if someone who has would take care of the grammar and such. 207.207.127.236 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it matters if a link must be given, but the entirety of the plot synopsis was taken from the one currently at themoviespoiler.com, terrible grammar aside. -Steven- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.119.151 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing, Steven, and I have blanked the Plot section as being too close a paraphrase to be on the right side of copyright concerns. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And an IP replaced the section. Rather than war with someone putting it back in as fast as I take it out, I have instead tagged the section with a notice that makes it clear that it is a paraphrase and needs to be rewritten. Hopefully someone will be wiling to re-write it. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the ending is wrong to a small degree. Tony admits his sin, and apologizes. The Devil stops and looks at him, waiting, then says something along the lines of "and I really wanted you". The following scenes are of the Detective making sure to pick up Tony, and drive him away. He confesses that it was his family, and how he really wanted to do a variety of things to him beforehand. But not now. Now he forgives him. Anyways, we can't make assumptions on wikipedia(which the current section does at the end). But the viewer is lead to believe the reason he is saved from the devil was that because he is forgiven, not that he has apologized(which technically he already had done years prior. Also on that note(future pun), the flashback shows the note he left on the car. It's not that the way he apologizes that makes the Detective link the case, it's that it's the exact same scenario. Anyways. I can't remember my login, nor do I care to write this out in any sourced/better manner. Just figured I'd point it out. Either way, original research technically, but the article has it's own anyways. So I'd suggestion taking both leaps out. 99.112.71.120 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was spared because he was repentant He confessed his sin, the others did not. 40.131.140.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Someone vandalized the release section. I deleted the crap, but someone needs to warn the user that did the personal insults on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.132.83 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source in question? It was a good synopsis (having read it without any idea of the copyvio), and should probably be condensed so as to avoid the problem. But this cannot be done at present as you've taken the extraordinary (as it seems to me, though it may be in line with current policy for all I know) step of deleting all intermediate versions containing the problematic material. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed in line with current policy and particularly necessary here given repeated efforts of IPs to reintroduce copyvios earlier in this article's development (that is, just a few days ago). The source copied this time was [1]. Previously, people pasted this. Condensing will not alone resolve the problem, as abridgment forms a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janekowski vs. Janikowski[edit]

A non logged-in user modified the spelling of Janekowski to Janikowski. This is incorrect. The correct spelling (beyond any doubt) is Janekowski (with an "e", not an "i"). The surname of Janekowski was actually a plot device of the film, because the appearance of "Janekowski" on the visitors' log is what led the police detectives in the film to initially believe that the red-haired woman was named Jane Kowski (Tony's character scribbled only his last name on the visitors' log, creating the confusion). Furthermore, if you watch a DVD of the film and use the subtitles feature, you will clearly see that it is spelled Janekowski in the subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean 2015 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Markowitz and Elsa Nahai?[edit]

The "Cast" section lists two characters who are never mentioned in the rest of the article. Can someone who's seen the film add their parts to the "Plot" section?

Joshua Peace as Detective Markowitz

Caroline Dhavernas as Elsa Nahai

75.15.126.160 (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]