Talk:The 'Burbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the discussion/talk page for article: The 'Burbs.

WikiProject Film (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 

Topics from 2006[edit]

Diatribe[edit]

Dudesleeper, I do not appreciate you classing my addition to this article as "diatribe"! CX23882-19 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It kind of was, though. Your expanded version is acceptable. Dudesleeper 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but just to prove my point (and that I'm not just making trivia up :O), here you go:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/CX23882-19/burbstree1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/CX23882-19/burbstree2.jpg
In both cases, the tree appears pretty much dead, with three large main branches low down, with "fingers" coming off each of them. Notice that the a few seconds of just the tree are shown, before the actual "sacrifice" bit, which I believe is there to bring it to the attention of the audience (although I might be clutching at straws now). Also, I changed The 'Burbs to The 'burbs, as I believe that to be the correct spelling (although as it only appears as THE 'BURBS in both the movie and Dana's original script, that could be up for debate). CX23882-19 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think The 'Burbs looks better, but that's just an opinion. I'm considering redirecting the whole article to a new page with the apostrophe included in the name. Dudesleeper 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
RE the apostrophe in the article name, I agree. It seems that right now, the entries WITH the apostrophe redirect to the one without. This should be the other way round.CX23882-19 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Topics from 2007[edit]

Fair use rationale for Image:BurbsDVDR2.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:BurbsDVDR2.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 Wikipedia articles 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 WP:FU (fair use). (...remainder omitted...)
Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

The detective talking to Art after the Klopeks' house had been blown up said that Walter had been taken to the hospital on Monday night; so from that, it was possible to work out the days. The section needs tidied up because it was written (in bulletpoint form) by myself in LiveJournal's Mayfield Place community. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Butlers' house[edit]

Are we sure this is the "Munsters House"? I thought it was the one one or two houses further down (away from the other characters' houses). - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008[edit]

The residents of Mayfield Place[edit]

Exactly what is the purpose of this section? Not only is it completely unorthodox for film related articles, but it smacks of fan cruft. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's informative. The house numbers are all displayed in the movie (not least the Klopeks', when the "9" swivels around to make the number "666"). The movie also features several overhead shots, and the diagram assists the average viewer in placing who occupies which house. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not informative in an encyclopedic sense, but only for somebody who is a fan/highly familiar with the movie. It's a neat little map considering my affinity for the film, but I fall to see how it adds anything to the article. The article itself has already been tagged with an "intricate details geared to a specific subset of people (aka "fans")" template. My suggestion is remove it and focus more on writing a coherent plot synopsis instead of a morning, day, evening, night schedule. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No, the map is just fine, as an issue within the film article. Remember "The Da Vinci Code" had 12 separate articles in 2006, not just a map image: and that broke the mold of keeping limited articles. In fact, the coverage of "Gone with the Wind" might benefit from a map showing Tara plantation in relation to other landmarks. The psychology of limited mindsets is an interesting problem, dating back thousands of years: fortunately, Plato (with Archimedes) solved the problem over 2,300 years ago, with the concept of expanded knowledge as an all-encompassing ("encyclo-pedic") universe of data, giving rise to the "university" concept as unified study, developed in Plato's Academy (the first university) then the Lyceum. It's good to understand wider perspectives, and how there would be over 50 notable people named "James Smith" or such. The days of the simple Paragraph-o-pedia are long, long gone. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the map is fine. The article quotes the film's director's comments about how it was both very unusual and artistically challenging to have an entire film set in only one location. As this lone setting is a crucial element of this film, I believe a simple diagram is informative.PurpleChez (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers[edit]

08-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Untagged from too detailed[edit]

08-Oct-2008: The article contains a wide range of details about the film, including long-plot and soundtrack details, but such details are common in other film articles, so I untagged from the "{{fancruft..}}" tag. Note that "The Da Vinci Code" had 12 separate articles in 2006: and that wide coverage broke the mold of keeping limited articles (3 years ago). Many people still try to severely limit article content (keeping the wording hollow and shallow by tagging "too detailed"), but such opinionated mindsets are now known to be highly limited, trying to subset reality. And, Wikipedia does not subset reality. The days of the simple old Paragraph-o-pedia are over. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cult status?[edit]

I don't remember where i read this but i saw this movie under the cult films genre. I think i have seen it in a few places. just wondering if this should be mentioned if it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've become very cynical about the "cult film" label...it used to refer to a limited range of films, but it's now given to just about every movie that does better in home video and cable than it did in theaters. I was wondering, however snarkily, why a personal fave like The 'Burbs wasn't listed as a cult film, and came here to say so, only to find that a mysterious stranger long ago beat me to it. PurpleChez (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)