Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:14, 28 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Under the Skin (2013 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Film: British / 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 British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Start‑class

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction 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.

Rave reviews in Telegraph and Guardian, respected UK newspapers

How can we reference the reviews which received 5 stars?

^[1]

^[2]

Justblowharder (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release date?

Will this film be released to theaters beyond the film festival circuit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names of characters

Where are the characters' names derived from? Are they named (eg Laura, the Bad Man) in the credits? Popcornduff (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office

In the infobox, the gross is listed as $2,824,615. However, the citation currently lists the lifetime gross as $1,086,000 as of April 20, 2014. Am I reading this incorrectly? My change was reverted by User:Status, so perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thing. I did do a 'find on page', though, and couldn't find the other number listed. Where on that citation does it list $2,824,615? Happy to discuss this, but if nobody objects, I'll just change it back sometime tomorrow. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$1,086,000 is the domestic gross, if you click on the foreign tab, you can see $1,789,813 for the UK. That number is an addition of both. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, Status! Much appreciated. --Yamla (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Usually the site provides a total gross, but for some reason, it hasn't for this film. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator continually removing poster art?

Anyone care to chime in on this? I've uploaded it once or twice now and it keeps getting deleted for reasons that are unclear. The majority of film entries on Wikipedia contain images of the posters, yet an administrator by the name of Yamla keeps deleting the image. This is getting ridiculous. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why it's being deleted either. It's not immediately obvious. Popcornduff (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image requires an appropriate detailed fair-use rationale. The license that has been chosen the last three or four times specifically and explicitly prohibited its use solely for illustration, while the uploader indicated it was only being used for illustration. There's certainly no reason why a fair-use image with an appropriate license and rationale could remain up, but copyright violations must be removed. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I see it has been uploaded again, this time with an appropriate detailed fair-use rationale. Thanks, everyone! --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Puchko paragraph in "Critical Response"

I've deleted the paragraph regarding Kristy Puchko's interpretation in the "Critical Response" section of "Reception." The paragraph made no mention of Puchko's criticism/praise of the film and instead focused on the writer's interpretation of the film. Seeing as the rest of the section (and nearly every section like it on Wikipedia) is focused on scores and criticism/praise from notable reviewers it seemed like a fair edit.

If someone disagrees then they should perhaps consider creating a "Meaning" or "Interpretations" tab for the film. But bear in mind that the writings of writers other than Kristy Puchko will need to be represented. And if one would like to keep the review of Kristy Puchko in the "Critical Response" tab please refrain from just re-posting the deleted paragraph. It would be more fitting to instead find a sentence or passage that sums up the writer's overall opinion of the film and then adding it to the paragraph that already has quotes like that.

[1] ttp://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/03/under-the-skin-review

[2] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/venice-film-festival/10283407/Under-the-Skin-Venice-Film-Festival-review.html

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :::And to be clear, I see it has been uploaded again, this time ''with'' an appropriate detailed fair-use rationale. Thanks, everyone! --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 19:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
+== Kristy Puchko paragraph in "Critical Response" ==
+I've deleted the paragraph regarding Kristy Puchko's interpretation in the "Critical Response" section of "Reception." The paragraph made no mention of Puchko's criticism/praise of the film and instead focused on the writer's interpretation of the film. Seeing as the rest of the section (and nearly every section like it on Wikipedia) is focused on scores and criticism/praise from notable reviewers it seemed like a fair edit.
+If someone disagrees then they should perhaps consider creating a "Meaning" or "Interpretations" tab for the film. But bear in mind that the writings of writers other than Kristy Puchko will need to be represented. And if one would like to keep the review of Kristy Puchko in the "Critical Response" tab please refrain from just re-posting the deleted paragraph. It would be more fitting to instead find a sentence or passage that sums up the writer's overall opinion of the film and then adding it to the paragraph that already has quotes like that.