Talk:Teeth (2007 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:07, 2 January 2013

Horror Start‑class

	This 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.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American Start‑class

	Film portal 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 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

plot correction

Correction: the gynecologist is not "examining" Dawn when she bites off his fingers. He has removed his gloves, lubed up his bare hand, and he is painfully "fisting" her. This is a brutal sexual assault, not an examination. 67.76.163.46 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quote from external site

So it looks like the plot summary was plagiarized from http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1504/

How does Wikipedia feel about plagiarism?

Please try and avoid personal attacks on the talk pages. See Wikipedia:Avoid Abuse of Talk Pages and Wikipedia:Good Faith for some good guidelines on proper Wikipedia ettiquette. There are some good guidelines for how to deal with plagiarism as well: Wikipedia:Copywright Infringement and Copywright Problems. We can't permit plagiarism here. However maybe it would be best if someone could take a look at the alledged plagiarism and work to re-write the content? I'm sure this article could be salvaged with some positive co-operative effort. Thanks! 66.17.118.195 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's plagiarism going on, but the original source for the text is actually the film's website, so it looks like someone simply cut and pasted in the official film synopsis. I've remedied the trouble spot with a citation and quote marks.
Malinda E. Berry 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dawn&Tobey-Teeth(film).JPG

Image:Dawn&Tobey-Teeth(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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer

You can see the trailer for this movie HERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

Should the change in marketing be noted? The first poster presents it as a goofy comedy, wheras the 2nd one presents it as a creepy horror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth (2008)

why is there no article for the new teeth film coming out in 2008? Machete97 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailers on tv and in cinemas, adverts everywhere etc. It doesn't really need them but here's some web sources I just looked up now - [1] (ask.com search results if you want more) [2] [3] [4]

for some reason IMDb doesn't have any info on it either - unless someone else can find it. Machete97 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the image in this article is the exact same image as the one in the trailers, adverts and posters for the 2008 film. Machete97 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the image in the article shows a website at the bottom which says the film is coming out in 2008 Machete97 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because of the fact that it's the SAME MOVIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.103.53 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 04:31, 7 December 2008 76.182.95.113 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia--Wing (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man! That was one crazy movie!

Amd to see a lot of them have guts to do so! Man! his movie deserves a clap for being crazy and courageous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.183 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Dawn's vagina dentata is frequently referred to as a mutation, but is sometimes also referred to as an adaptation. Calling it an adaptation is somewhat ironic because evolutionary adaptations are selected by increased reproductive fitness. Fitness is defined as the ability of an organism to reproduce, and a vagina dentata would obviously decrease fitness - some copulative attempts would be aborted, some males would be rendered impotent, and last, if the knowledge of the person's condition was spread, males would avoid any attempts at reproduction.

Plot?

Seems to me that what is presented as plot here is actually a detailed description of the film, more like a outline. I believe what should be presented as plot is a smaller, broader description of the main story, instead of a report of every event that takes place in the film. Do other users agree with me?Kosmonauta (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a read of this and this. Plot descriptions should be as detailed as possible but not exceed 700 words, which is precisely what this plot summary does. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above editor, Kosmonauta, that the plot description is overly long and reads like "and then she, and then he" and, IMO, needs to be seriously cut down. This has nothing to do with spoiler issues, and the second link provided takes us to a page, where if we click on the link to the relevant section of the MoS, we can read "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. ". It is overly long, wordy, confusing and I would do it but I've never seen the film. Anyone want to take a stab? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're replying to a thread over a year old, whatever that user was commenting on is most likely different to the current plot. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree. Less information is NEVER better than more information. 67.76.163.46 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Undid some vandalism. The actress' name was cut out and some nonsense about playing cards was inserted into the "Plot" section. 24.94.44.253 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no negative criticism for this astonishingly misandrist, hateful, bigoted, insult to half the human race?

This film is in desperate need of due criticism of its unbelievably sexist and misandrist themes and it's inexcusably hostility it shows to half the human race (apparently too many of the males here are either to blindsighted, deluded, or self-hating, or maybe just stupified and speechless and unwilling how to proceed to address something like this to do something about it). I'm going to scour the internet for there's got to be someone out there with a brian, heart, and conscience to expose this astonishing hateful, bigoted, anti-male piece of garbage for what it is. The article would both be improved immensely by supplying overdue negative criticism to this feature length hate speech. Alialiac (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not really the place for your personal rants... AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the victims are basically assholes. On the other hand, you might claim that there almost are no main positive male characters in the movie, except for Bill and maybe Phil. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical error on the article

Under "plot" on the main article, the fourth line down starts "Dawn has fantasizes about marrying Tobey", which presumably is either meant to be "Dawn has fantasies about marrying Tobey" or "Dawn fantasizes about marrying Tobey". Since this article is semi-protected I am unable to fix this myself. Icanflynow (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ::I agree with the above editor, Kosmonauta, that the plot description is overly long and reads like "and then she, and then he" and, IMO, needs to be seriously cut down. This has nothing to do with spoiler issues, and the second link provided takes us to a page, where if we click on the link to the relevant section of the MoS, we can read "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. ". It is overly long, wordy, confusing and I would do it but I've never seen the film. Anyone want to take a stab? <b>[[User:Captain Screebo|<font color="B22222">Captain</font><font color="DAA520">Screebo</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Captain_Screebo|<font color="32CD32">Parley!</font>]]</sup></b> 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 ::You're replying to a thread over a year old, whatever that user was commenting on is most likely different to the current plot. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
+:No, I do not agree. Less information is NEVER better than more information. [[Special:Contributions/67.76.163.46|67.76.163.46]] ([[User talk:67.76.163.46|talk]]) 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 ==Vandalism==