# Talk:Carnosaur (film)

This film is poor in every way - writing, directing, editing, acting. The entry should be deleted, as it is just not notable.--Shtove 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was good or bad, it's a horror film that was listed. CharlieP216 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carnosaur (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Should be fun to sink my teeth into this one. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well-written:
1a  Lede: sentence "Reviews both praised and criticized the film's special effects created with production's limited budget as well as the gore, while others focused on its tone" is confusingly written and needs rewriting.
Plot: "He attempts reporting a trespasser, Ann Thrush, but Sheriff Fowler is investigating a series of gruesome killings, revealed to be perpetrated by Tiptree's missing creature, a Deinonychus"- "attempts reporting" is meaningless, he did report it. Can delete "revealed to be"
" contacts Tiptree on the vehicle's" - on the vehicle's what?
"Her objective, to" should be "Her objective is to"
Production: "formalised"- given MOS:STRONGNAT this can be Americanized to "formalized"
Special effects: Change "lbs" to "pounds"- nothing else is abbreviated. I'd suggest using Template:Convert too
" but only a few shots" - you mean " but only a few forced-perspective shots"?
Release: WP:LQ: "I will no doubt take the lead in shouting abuse at the screen".
"The Los Angeles Times remarked that the film" - The Times speaking with one voice, or Kevin Thomas?

1b   Article is in proper order, though given the small nature of "Home media" I think the header can be removed.
Verifiable with no original research 

2a   Cast section is unreferenced (and unformatted, lacking Template:Castlist). efanzines ref needs formatting (Template:Citeweb or Template:Cite magazine) The first para of Special effects should be attributed to p 49, not 49-50.  2b   Generally good sources
2c.  In Reception, "campy classic" should be "campy and fun". Rotten Tomatoes quote isn't the critical consensus; it appears under "Movie info."
2d.  Production features close paraphrasing from sources, mostly The Dinosaur Filmography: 

Broad in its coverage:

3a.  Article is very short, but Carnosaur was a minor film ($1.8 million at the box office and not even a cult film).  That said, details can still be added: WP:LEAD is too short and doesn't summarize the whole article; it says little about production and nothing about special effects. Production mentions Ladd is Laura Dern's mother but doesn't explain why that's worth noting- it was considered a "casting coup". That TV Guide review can also be added to the Release and reception section.  More casting info found in one source: "The part was not originally written for a woman, but I wasn't able, really, to cast it with anybody I thought was right. I wanted someone with a great deal of strength and at the same time an intelligent person. When I didn't find that person available, I thought of Diane and switching the role from a man to a woman. So I did that and offered it to Diane and she accepted." Release: "The film opened in theatres four weeks before Jurassic Park but was mainly a home media release" - what were some of the cities where it screened in the limited release? Maltin review is definitely worth adding as well; he's a prominent though buffoonish critic.
3b.  Not a lot off-topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
4.  No issues here. It's an awful film that doesn't go over the top with unreferenced POV or undue weight to defenders. Production is written neutrally, honestly chronicling a cheap shoot designed to capitalize on Jurassic Park without dwelling on criticisms.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
5. No edit wars.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
6.  Images have fair use rationales.
Follow up I would delete "and variety of dinosaurs" from the lede (it's ambiguous) and just mention the special effects were done by models and animatronics. 
I'd suggest using Template:Convert on the feet as well. 
White Siddiqah, have you considered moving the Home media subsection up to the rest of the release info, deleting the Home media header, and making Reception the subsection?
The source doesn't say that Corman met Brosnan at the tour, just that this was where the book first came to Corman's attention.
The source doesn't say Corman's wife first approached Brosnan at the "drinking club" (can we reword that?)- but that they agreed to meet there. Also, "the a deal" needs fixing.
"Because stop-motion techniques and optical effects would interfere with filming" can be "Because Corman felt stop-motion techniques and optical effects would interfere with filming, Buechler agreed that all the creatures would be "real-time" models" 
Maybe say "TV Guide considered Ladd a 'casting coup' " Ribbet32 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: thank you for the review. I will continue to address your points later today, but I have two questions. Where would be a good place to include a source for the cast section? Also, if possible, could you recommend a re-writing of "lightweight polyurethane, cut, shaped and glued together"? I am having difficulty with that one.White Siddiqah (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
White Siddiqah, There's no set way to cite casting; it's a new frontier. My GA Loveless uses an introductory sentence; the Princess Diaries GAC and La La Land (film) mention the sources at the beginning or end.
You're right some words are irreplaceable; I think I could be comfortable with something like "The crew cut and pasted sheets of L200, a sturdy, light polyurethane, for its innards".  I still think some of the paraphrasing is too close: "ad campaign" is unnecessarily slangy when you could say "marketing". Ribbet32 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: I believe I covered your remaining points and took your suggestions. Let me know if I missed something or if you have other concerns.White Siddiqah (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay White Siddiqah (busy with work.) I still feel "Reviews both praised and criticized the film's special effects as well as the gore, while others focused on its tone" needs rewriting. The same critics praised and criticized the same aspects at the same time? Also, why copy that luxurious production schedule stuff word for word when you can say the crew was allotted more time to carry out their work than was typical for Corman's productions? Ribbet32 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Ribbet32 no problem. Whenever you have time, see if how I re-wrote the sections in question resolve your concerns.White Siddiqah (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)