Talk:Twilight (1998 film)

message: Sorry, but it's no more "famous" than the topless scenes dozens of other actresses have done in the past century. I could cite chapter and verse, as I could probably name 20 or 30 off the top of my head, but I wouldn't say that any of the scenes qualifies as famous.
And the link to Reese nude is no more appropriate here than in an article about her.
==
I removed the plot summary because it was erroneous. Newman's character is not investigating the possibility of Sarandon's character having an affair, and there is no hint that Hackman's character is an "old friend" - it is not said in so many words, but it is certainly suggested that Hackman's and Newman's characters became acquainted two years before the main action of the film when Newman was hired to track down Hackman's daughter. The two are certainly friends, but not "old friends". Moleskiner 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know if Moliskiner is still around, and I know this is almost 3 years after the fact; but, while I agree that a brief nude scene isn't worthy of much mention, and the March 06 summary was not accurate, the movie does establish the fact that Newman's and Hackman's characters are indeed friends.  While the conclusion of the story may strain the friendship, a man doesn't live at another man's house without there being a friendship.  I'll revisit this article within the next few days and try to add a little more to it (accurately) and we'll see how we do from there. Ched (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if you need help with sourcing.  I doubt that this film is reputable enough to find too many reliable sources online.  I have access to some subscription-only databases, so I can dig into them to find any useful nuggets. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just headed over to your talk page Erik, but since we're keeping all threads at original post ... Just wanted to say thanks on the offer.  I will definitely take you up on that.  I might even be interested in joining one or two of those sources.  Not sure how much can be done with this little gem here, but I just saw it for the first time, and while it's not anyone's "BEST" work, I thought it was good in it's own right.  Thanks again, and I'll be in touch soon to try to improve "Twilight" .. Ched (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. :)  Just drop a message on my talk page! —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reese's "famous" topless scene

message: :Image:Twilight DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Twilight DVD.jpg

message: I've done a major rewrite here.  Feel free to comment. Ched (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to Fuhghettaboutit for his help cleaning up after a beginner!  It is greatly appreciated. Ched (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  major edit: added sections, info, references 

message: I agree with Ched's Start-Class assessment of the film article.  I think that before the article can achieve B-Class, we should find more information than just reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the guidelines in the banner by clicking on the "show" button and then follow the link for "See how this article can be improved to B-Class status." Following these instructions will help to improve the article to B-class. Currently the article needs some more expansion and a good copyedit (the reception section has some words that don't need to be capitalized, newspapers that aren't italicized, etc.) Once you believe that the article meets the criteria based on the instructions in the banner, re-nominate it again for reassessment. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start-Class 

message: *
Check out the chapter in this book for a very detailed thematic analysis of the film! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: from a recent edit:
* the film got mixed reviews but it was a financial disaster at the box office
# - this doesn't belong in the lead (lede)
# - there is no reference supplied
# - the statistical information is covered and referenced in the Reception section, along with further "reviews" provided as links.
# - the statement is provided as a first person (WP:OR) statement.
I'll continue to remove this unless there is some discussion brought forth with some sort of explanation which could rule this out as vandalism.  I'm open to any views on this - feel free to discuss.  I don't deny that the film did not meet expectations, and I think that's covered by well sourced secondary sources here - but as the man says, if you don't agree - "Fill your boots" — Ched ~  (yes?) 18:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: The mentioned budget is NOT a fact. And you can find sources with quite different figures. Boxofficemojo says $37,000,000 - IMDB says $20,000,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.254.127 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  budget