# Talk:Panic Room

I'm just wondering, to me the Critical perspectives and themes subsection reads like an essay by a third year film studies student. Is it really appropriate? Does the fact that somebody wrote a critical essay about a movie merit discussion of their thesis on the Wikipedia page? If an academic wrote a paper on how Tropic Thunder is an allegory for the plight of dairy farmers in Lebannon, would that warrant a paragraph on that films page? 209.227.133.56 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, such coverage is appropriate per WP:SOURCETYPES, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." None of these sources are theses or dissertations, being peer-reviewed journal articles, or book chapters from a scholarly press. The coverage summarizes each source, all which have multiple pages about the film. Perhaps they could be more interwoven, but overall they are reliable and warrant inclusion.
If this kind of subtopic seems uncommon, it's because such sources are often paywalled or not in the typical book store, compared to news articles and general books about a film's production and reception. MOS:FILMTHEMES also says, "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes—well-sourced and cited to avoid original research—is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced." Erik (talk | contrib) 15:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI-generated tag to this article, regarding the above edits; this is only a suspicion and not proof, the text in changes such as this, this, and others displays strong  indicators that a LLM was used to generate text -- in this case, I suspect to summarize a source given to it. There are immediate problems with WP:WIKIVOICE; a very common quirk of LLMs is to generate text like not only underscores her vulnerability but also implicates viewers in the act of surveillance stated as fact when it is opinion/original analysis, or to use it for synthesis like While Panic Room superficially aligns with domestic narratives of post-9/11 sociopolitical concerns, Ramuglia situates the film within broader ecological themes. In the additions, the paragraphs usually start with an attribution to a source but state everything else in wikivoice (which is common in newer chatbot output that attempts to summarize sources). Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is the original text:
The domestic techno-gadgetry in Panic Room buttresses Sarah’s glucometer and its testimony "to contemporary culture's devotion to technology and simulated knowledge." That this techno-devotion is lavished on a frail young girl is disturbing, but even more frightful is the linking of this girl’s safety to strategies of vision. Sarah’s advanced glucometer encapsulates the other scenes where bodies are visually monitored by closed-circuit cameras. In both No Good Deed and Panic Room, the glucometer arranges the viewer’s acknowledgement of diabetic self care, thus implicating the viewer in the process of control.
I contend that examining Panic Room from an ecocritical perspective reveals a startling cinematic commentary on American environmental consciousness in the post-9/11 world... Written and produced before but released to audiences only several months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Panic Room does not fit tidily into the category of post-9/11 narratives...  Panic Room’s domestic allegory is less a discursive limitation than it is an asset for situating human-scale daily life in a broader ecological context.
Let me know of anything else. Also, the attribution is set up at the beginning of each section. It is not necessary to repeat the author in every single sentence. It is clear it is their analysis. The attribution in each section is not limited to the beginning, either, but repeats more than once. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)