Jump to content

Talk:Panic Room

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Panic Room (film))

References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Browning, Mark. "Woman in Peril or Final Girl? Alien 3 and Panic Room". David Fincher: Films That Scar. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-37772-3.
  • Dixon, Wheeler Winston (2004). Film and Television After 9/11. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-2556-6.
  • Ferguson, Kevin L. (September 2010). "The Cinema of Control: On Diabetic Excess and Illness in Film". Journal of Medical Humanities. 31 (3): 183–204. doi:10.1007/s10912-010-9110-8. ISSN 1041-3545.
  • Kammerer, Dietmar (2004). "Video Surveillance in Hollywood Movies" (PDF). Surveillance & Society. 2 (2/3): 464–473. ISSN 1477-7487.
  • Kapur, Jyotsna (2008). "Fear on the Footsteps of Comedy: Childhood and Paranoia in Contemporary American Cinema". Visual Anthropology. 22 (1): 44–51. doi:10.1080/08949460802529027. ISSN 0894-9468.
  • King, Peter (March 2004). "The room to panic: An example of film criticism and housing research". Housing, Theory and Society. 21 (1): 27–35. doi:10.1080/14036090410030658. ISSN 1403-6096.
  • King, Peter (2004). "Fear and the comfort of the mundane". Private Dwelling: Contemplating the Use of Housing. Housing, Planning and Design Series. Routledge. pp. 129–150. ISBN 978-0-415-33620-8.
  • King, Peter (2005). The Common Place: The Ordinary Experience of Housing. Design and the Built Environment. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 53, 58–59. ISBN 978-0-7546-4611-2.
  • Kitterman, John (June 2003). "Home(land) Invasion: Poe, Panic Rooms, and 9/11". The Journal of American Culture. 26 (2): 237–242. doi:10.1111/1542-734X.00089. ISSN 1542-734X.
  • Magid, Ron (March 2002). "Previsualizing Panic Room". American Cinematographer. 83 (3): 44. ISSN 0002-7928.
  • Morrison, James (2008). "Hostages and Houseguests: Class and Family in the New Screen Gothic". In Pomerance, Murray (ed.). A Family Affair: Cinema Calls Home. Wallflower Press. pp. 189–204. ISBN 978-1-905674-56-5.
  • Mulhall, Stephen (2008). On Film. Thinking in Action. Routledge. pp. 104–106. ISBN 978-0-415-44153-7.
  • Nielsen, Bianca (2005). "Home Invasion and Hollywood Cinema: David Fincher's Panic Room". In Heller, Dana (ed.). The Selling of 9/11: How a National Tragedy Became a Commodity. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-6817-3.
  • Probst, Christopher (March 2002). "Home Invasion". American Cinematographer. 83 (3): 40–43, 46–51. ISSN 0002-7928.
  • Siegel, Carol (2013). "Metaphoric Architecture: Race and Real Estate in Panic Room and The People Under The Stairs". Quarterly Review of Film and Video. 30: 74–88. doi:10.1080/10509208.2010.545587. ISSN 1050-9208.
  • Swallow, James (2007). "House Arrest". Dark Eye: The Films of David Fincher. Reynolds & Hearn. pp. 145–173. ISBN 978-1-905287-30-7.

Resources

[edit]

Nicole Kidman - Uncredited voice on the phone

[edit]

If Nicole Kidman is uncredited, how can she be listed here? Is there something to back this up? DVD extra, perhaps? If nothing can be found, I'll delete the line.--ML5 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--ML5 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error in "plot" section of article

[edit]

In the plot section of the article, it says that the girl / daughter (played by Stewart) character has "diabetes". I believe what it should say is that she has "hypoglycemia". Diabetes = HIGH blood sugar Hypoglycemia = LOW blood sugar if you watch the movie it's pretty clear that her blood sugar is going too low. Hence, hypoglycemia. As a counterpoint it is possible i suppose that she does in fact have diabetes and took too much insulin before going to bed, and that is the reason that her blood sugar is crashing, but it seems an overly complicated explanation. Occam's Razor and all that. I hope I did this correctly. I have never ever edited a page or posted to a talk thingy before, so if i did something incorrectly, i apologize for my noob-itis. 76.28.0.253 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched and it appears that it was portrayed as diabetes in the film, but that they got it all wrong and backwards—there are multiple websites complaining bitterly and going down a list of many things they got wrong. So, you are quite logical in your deductions but you didn't count human error in as one of the simplest explanations:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section rather useless

[edit]

I am quite baffled by the Analysis section. Maybe it could be rewritten as a Mentions list, but it might also need some trimming. Right now it reads like a summary of 3 undergrad sociology papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.211.36 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "a Mentions list". It is appropriate to have such sections, and the sources are reliable: Journal of Medical Humanities, Surveillance & Society, Visual Anthropology, and The Journal of American Culture. These are hardly undergraduate papers or even thesis dissertations. The Featured Article American Beauty (film) has a similar section. MOS:FILM#Themes has guidelines about these kinds of sections. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have to agree, it's essentially free advertising for writers and political pundits that doesn't really add anything to the article and isn't particularly relevant to something that's supposed to be encyclopedic. 47.182.145.242 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@47.182.145.242: It's not free advertising. The academic commentary was not written to be included in Wikipedia articles. The commentary was published in reliable sources and qualifies for use here. WP:PLOT says, "Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." Contemporary reviews reflect the reception at the time, but significance is best established retrospectively, and the commentary in these sources do that. See American Beauty (1999 film) and Tender Mercies, which are Featured Articles that have such commentary, meaning that such commentary has been validated in the Featured Article Candidacy process. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that whilst the American Beauty analysis section is somewhat balanced and relevant, and transcribes generally relatable angles of perception of the movie, this section here is consistently terrible and contains multiple personal POVs that are given undue weight for no apparent reason, some of them being ridiculously unrelatable (the first one, namely). Visual Anthropology has a -terrible- SJR of 0.21, and the article in question has been cited a meager amount of 7 times. This do not and cannot represent sufficient authority to push such an absurd and personal POV. I definitely recommend heavily rewriting that whole section, and banning the troll responsible for it from making further edits (somehow, this guy finds funny to revert any edit done here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.35.196.253 (talk) 04 August 2021 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panic Room. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Panic Room/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, give me a Ping when you’ve put up some things to address. Rusted AutoParts 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

[edit]
  • Archive all archivable sources.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
 Fixed Chompy Ace 21:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film's budget and running time need references.
 Done Chompy Ace 21:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • The sentence "Koepp's screenplay was inspired by news coverage in 2000 about panic rooms" should probably go in the first paragraph of the lead, and should also be merged with the sentence before it to something like "The script was written by David Koepp, whose screenplay was inspired by news coverage in 2000 about panic rooms."
 Done Chompy Ace 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section says the film made $196.4 million. However, the film actually made $197.1 million.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the above edit in mind, change "$100 million" to "$100.7 million".
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Saturn Award nomination seems like a good thing to add to the final paragraph.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foster would receive a nomination for the Saturn Award for Best Actress." → "Foster would later receive a Saturn Award nomination for Best Actress."
 Done Chompy Ace 13:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  • In the last sentence, the single use of the word "later" doesn't quite fit in, so I would change it to "A few days later".
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I suggest merging the last sentence with the second-to-last paragraph.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, Stephen has survived, while Meg and Sarah, recovered from their harrowing ordeal, search the newspaper for a new home." → "A few days later, Stephen, Meg, and Sarah search the newspaper for a new home, having recovered from their harrowing ordeal."
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

[edit]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Development

[edit]
  • No problems here.

Pre-production

[edit]
  • "make actual production difficult for him" → "make actual production difficult for him and his crew".
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

[edit]
  • "Conrad Hall, Jr." → Conrad W. Hall
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference after "the end of January 2001" should be fixed/correctly formatted (title, publisher, etc.).
 Done Chompy Ace 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, move that same reference to the end of the sentence it's in.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question? The reference wasn't moved.
moved. Chompy Ace 00:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also returned two months later for additional filming.[1] Filming was completed in November 2001.[1]" → "She also returned two months later for additional filming,[1] which concluded that November.[1]"
 Done Chompy Ace 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visual and practical effects

[edit]
  • This section seems kinda short, so I recommend combining both paragraphs into a single one.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

[edit]

Conspiracy thrillers and feminism

[edit]
  • "divided by gender. She describes the male protagonist" → "divided by gender, describing the male protagonist"
 Done Chompy Ace 13:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine and technology as themes

[edit]
  • No issues here.

Approach to mortality

[edit]
  • Looks good.

Release

[edit]
 Done Chompy Ace 13:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference after "Los Angeles, California" should be properly formatted. Additionally, the current link is dead.
 Done removed because this archive is redirected or dead Chompy Ace 14:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question? No need to remove, an archive can be found here.
 Done Chompy Ace 00:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question? Just realized that the archive doesn't have any information on the premiere, and should therefore be replaced. Luckily, I found a reference from CBS that can be swapped in. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 02:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worldwide total of $196.4 million.[1] (In 2006 in Hong Kong, the film had a re-release that grossed $682K, increasing the total to $197.1 million.)[1]" → "worldwide total of $196.4 million (In 2006, the film had a re-release in Hong Kong that grossed $682 thousand, increasing the total to $197.1 million).[1]"
 Done Chompy Ace 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference after "ranks fifth" is subscription-only and should be marked as such.
 Done Chompy Ace 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]
  • The claim that critics "compared the film to the works of Alfred Hitchcock" needs a reference.
    The reference Swallow 2007, page 172, the first three sentences. It does not need to be repeated for each one. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done Chompy Ace 02:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the title of the Rotten Tomatoes reference to simply "Panic Room (2002)".
 Done as Panic Room per consistency with other film articles using {{Cite rt}} Chompy Ace 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two reviews? This section can definitely be expanded.
Need more links for reviews? Chompy Ace 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that there are definitely reviews around the performances, directing, writing, or even negative reviews that can be added.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the extensive use of quotes needs to be reduced per WP:RECEPTION.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home media

[edit]
 Done Chompy Ace 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the reference after "special edition DVD" to the end of the sentence its in.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark the reference after "including one by the director" as dead as the citation has been redirected to a different article.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]
  • "Contemporary Film award" → "Contemporary Film Award".
 Done Chompy Ace 14:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done, winners indicate asterisks as shown in the website Chompy Ace 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine both paragraphs into one.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Saturn Award nomination to the end.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For acting" → "For her performance in the film".
 Done Chompy Ace 14:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

GAN table

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Notes

[edit]
@Chompy Ace: just pinging to see which of these you tackled so I don’t retread any water. Rusted AutoParts 12:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Dude From North Carolina, the editors do not appear to have completed WP:GAN/I#N1, "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." It is concerning to see an editor remove content that references Swallow's chapter about Fight Club, considering it "trivia". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started noticing your more significant contributions to the page in the edit history so I’ll take blame for not consulting you. Apologies. Rusted AutoParts 13:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panic_Room&oldid=1204515808"