Talk:The Beaver (film)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beaver (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Mixed to Positive Reviews?[edit]
have no interest in seeing this movie. But it describes reviews as mixed to positive, then states it has a 69% freshness rating on rotten tomatoes. This rating will surely change over time, but isn't 69% generally regarded as a positive reception (at least that is what I seem to recall on the other film wiki pages). 173.48.18.151 (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the best depiction would be to say "released to mixed reviews". And then various ones can be specifically cited. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Comparison to Black Swan is unnecessary[edit]
Including this is a violation of NPOV standards and amounts to weasel words since it's here to dilute the subject and serves no other purpose. Sure, The Beaver did not flop as badly as say "Cutthroat Island" but such analysis is OR and doesn't belong here.75.174.142.170 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not original research. Entertainment Weekly provided the Black Swan comparison because it is not possible for a general reader to discern whether or not the limited release amount is significant. It is not weasel wording, either -- please read WP:WEASEL for what it actually means. As for WP:NPOV, we are reporting what Entertainment Weekly said as a point of comparison. It has been called a flop, and it is worth showing what is considered a good performance. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- "For comparison's sake, the indie smash Black Swan opened to $1.4 million at 18 locations for a per-site average of, whoa, $88,863." From Entertainment Weekly. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I accept your reasoning. What i do NOT accept is hiding your POV vandalism in your seemingly harmless edits. For instance, EW was not the only publication to call this movie a flop. I included several citations, all valid. So stop arbitarily deleting those. And even I disagree with your reasoning I do, however, believe in compromise so I won't delete his entry but STOP erasing my contributions which are just as valid under your reasoning. "Weasel words" means including lines, words that cast meaning on the contribution in a self-serving, deceptive light. I don't like the "Black Swan" stuff because the passage makes it look like EW is alone in their opinion about the financial business of this film and the suggestion is that they are using faulty logic by comparing it to a far more successful movie. However by NOT deleting my other contributions (i.e. the multiple publications calling this movie a "flop") then the "Black Swan" passage can NOT be misinterpreted this way. So I guess will wait and see if you are being sincere. Please accept this compromise since I've more than compromised with you. Happy editing.75.174.142.170 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're not compromising with me if you're accusing me of POV vandalism. I know Entertainment Weekly was not the only publication, but multiple references in this case is citation overkill. It's not really a matter of debate in mainstream media whether or not this film flopped on its opening weekend, so that's why I included just one. (They all parrot one another calling the film a flop, but EW had an interesting bit of comparison, which is why I chose that one in particular.) But we can go ahead with the extra references if it's that great of a concern. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I accept your reasoning. What i do NOT accept is hiding your POV vandalism in your seemingly harmless edits. For instance, EW was not the only publication to call this movie a flop. I included several citations, all valid. So stop arbitarily deleting those. And even I disagree with your reasoning I do, however, believe in compromise so I won't delete his entry but STOP erasing my contributions which are just as valid under your reasoning. "Weasel words" means including lines, words that cast meaning on the contribution in a self-serving, deceptive light. I don't like the "Black Swan" stuff because the passage makes it look like EW is alone in their opinion about the financial business of this film and the suggestion is that they are using faulty logic by comparing it to a far more successful movie. However by NOT deleting my other contributions (i.e. the multiple publications calling this movie a "flop") then the "Black Swan" passage can NOT be misinterpreted this way. So I guess will wait and see if you are being sincere. Please accept this compromise since I've more than compromised with you. Happy editing.75.174.142.170 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- "For comparison's sake, the indie smash Black Swan opened to $1.4 million at 18 locations for a per-site average of, whoa, $88,863." From Entertainment Weekly. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Plot needs expanding[edit]
Two sentences is far from a summary. Needs more. I'd do it but I really don't care for this film so I don't think I can do a good job. Someone should expand this.Games Junn (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Seriously[edit]
This page needs to be deleted, are you really expecting me to believe that this is a real movie? 142.197.180.88 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Cult following?[edit]
What exactly is meant by this film having a "cult following"? This should be elaborated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.200.223.69 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I looked and could not verify this unreferenced statement. I have removed it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
home amputation films category[edit]
is there a defined category for films featuring home amputations? There's this one, Evil Dead II, and Drowning Mona at least. also 127 Hours 204.8.27.140 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Beaver which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)