Talk:10 Cloverfield Lane: Difference between revisions
→Spoilers?: that seems a bit speculative... |
→Spoilers?: Agreed, this does not pass WP:V. |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::::The reason why many reviewers are not saying that it is a science fiction film is because revealing that would be a spoiler, and reviewers generally try to avoid spoiling the "twist" in a movie. Almost all of those links you posted are movie reviews. It is not because there is any doubt that this is a science fiction movie. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review, and thus it should list the genre of the movie correctly. There is no way this movie is not going to end up on lists of 2016 science fiction movies. [[User:Resistance is Character-Forming|Resistance is Character-Forming]] ([[User talk:Resistance is Character-Forming|talk]]) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
::::The reason why many reviewers are not saying that it is a science fiction film is because revealing that would be a spoiler, and reviewers generally try to avoid spoiling the "twist" in a movie. Almost all of those links you posted are movie reviews. It is not because there is any doubt that this is a science fiction movie. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review, and thus it should list the genre of the movie correctly. There is no way this movie is not going to end up on lists of 2016 science fiction movies. [[User:Resistance is Character-Forming|Resistance is Character-Forming]] ([[User talk:Resistance is Character-Forming|talk]]) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::When it ''does'' show up on such a list we can add that genre. Until then, unless you have a [[WP:RS|source]] to back-up your claim as to the reason why reviewers are not claiming that the film is sci-fi, you're engaging in [[WP:OR|speculation]]. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 18:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::::When it ''does'' show up on such a list we can add that genre. Until then, unless you have a [[WP:RS|source]] to back-up your claim as to the reason why reviewers are not claiming that the film is sci-fi, you're engaging in [[WP:OR|speculation]]. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 18:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::I agree. We just don't have evidence to support that external sources regard this film as a science fiction film. Thus, that claim fails to pass [[WP:V]].[[User:TheFreeloader|TheFreeloader]] ([[User talk:TheFreeloader|talk]]) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== spelling error == |
== spelling error == |
||
Revision as of 00:01, 23 March 2016
 | Film: American C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Spoilers?
Spoiler date, can we please add spoilers after a week or so? After most people have seen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.8.62 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are no spoilers. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can see WP:SPOILER for Wikipedia's policy regarding spoilers. Zamaster4536 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could we please stop removing the fact that this is a science fiction movie from the genre description? It seems a clear attempt to avoid "spoilers" but an encyclopedia article should not be trying to avoid spoiling a movie by leaving out crucial information. There are science fiction elements from the very beginning of the movie (people hiding from what they believe to be an unprecedented chemical attack of unknown origin), a victim of the alien attack is seen before the halfway point with symptoms incompatible with known realistic causes, and the last third of the movie has the protagonist fighting alien spacecraft. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with this section. But I will answer you here, since this is where you ask. This is not about it being spoilers. This is about treating subjects the same way on Wikipedia as they are treated in external sources. While your opinion might be that this should qualify as a science fiction film, the fact is that most external sources do not talk about this film as a science fiction film. Here is a list of some published reviews that never even mention the science fiction elements in this film, let alone call it a "science fiction film": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If the fact that this film has science fiction elements isn't important enough for these reviewers to mention it to their readers, then I certainly don't think it is important enough for us to include it in the first line in this article. WP:SPOILERS says that spoilers should be treated no different from other content. But that also means we should not go out of our way to stick them up the nose of our readers.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason why many reviewers are not saying that it is a science fiction film is because revealing that would be a spoiler, and reviewers generally try to avoid spoiling the "twist" in a movie. Almost all of those links you posted are movie reviews. It is not because there is any doubt that this is a science fiction movie. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review, and thus it should list the genre of the movie correctly. There is no way this movie is not going to end up on lists of 2016 science fiction movies. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- When it does show up on such a list we can add that genre. Until then, unless you have a source to back-up your claim as to the reason why reviewers are not claiming that the film is sci-fi, you're engaging in speculation. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. We just don't have evidence to support that external sources regard this film as a science fiction film. Thus, that claim fails to pass WP:V.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- When it does show up on such a list we can add that genre. Until then, unless you have a source to back-up your claim as to the reason why reviewers are not claiming that the film is sci-fi, you're engaging in speculation. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason why many reviewers are not saying that it is a science fiction film is because revealing that would be a spoiler, and reviewers generally try to avoid spoiling the "twist" in a movie. Almost all of those links you posted are movie reviews. It is not because there is any doubt that this is a science fiction movie. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review, and thus it should list the genre of the movie correctly. There is no way this movie is not going to end up on lists of 2016 science fiction movies. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with this section. But I will answer you here, since this is where you ask. This is not about it being spoilers. This is about treating subjects the same way on Wikipedia as they are treated in external sources. While your opinion might be that this should qualify as a science fiction film, the fact is that most external sources do not talk about this film as a science fiction film. Here is a list of some published reviews that never even mention the science fiction elements in this film, let alone call it a "science fiction film": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If the fact that this film has science fiction elements isn't important enough for these reviewers to mention it to their readers, then I certainly don't think it is important enough for us to include it in the first line in this article. WP:SPOILERS says that spoilers should be treated no different from other content. But that also means we should not go out of our way to stick them up the nose of our readers.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could we please stop removing the fact that this is a science fiction movie from the genre description? It seems a clear attempt to avoid "spoilers" but an encyclopedia article should not be trying to avoid spoiling a movie by leaving out crucial information. There are science fiction elements from the very beginning of the movie (people hiding from what they believe to be an unprecedented chemical attack of unknown origin), a victim of the alien attack is seen before the halfway point with symptoms incompatible with known realistic causes, and the last third of the movie has the protagonist fighting alien spacecraft. Resistance is Character-Forming (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
spelling error
The page is protected, so I couldn't edit the spelling error in the first line. 'titel' should read 'title.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.115.226 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 January 2016
misquote
The 'Release' section quotes Mary Elizabeth Winstead. But looking at the source, it seems like she's referring to another movie, Faults, instead of 10 Cloverfield Lane. Quote should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8100:1A4D:6D46:E80D:501A:3E33 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggested quote: "you don’t know who’s telling the truth or who to believe. There’s a lot of, who’s manipulating who, and all of that. Tonally, it’s very different, but it has some of those same themes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myztikrice (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a suggestion
Shouldn't there be some kind of a mention about how much of a secret and surprise this movie is? I'm not talking about it as a movie-goer, but as a researcher, about the fact that it's just come from out of nowhere in the midst of Abrams and Star Wars? --Matt723star (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nature of relation
If this spiritual successor is explicitly not a sequel, could it possible be a prequel or midquel? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop adding that line
We have no idea that they are or are not in the same universe. If you are going to write that, you have to cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncosman12 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)