Talk:Lost in Translation (film)

message: :Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
===Books===
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
===Articles===
*Scarlett fever
*Sofia Coppola Talks About Lost In Translation, Her Love Story That’s Not “Nerdy”
*Q&A with Sofia Coppola
*Scarlett Fever (Newsweek)
*'I know how to be sour'
*Talking Out Loud
*Sofia's Choice
*The Coppola Smart Mob
-some more articles to use.--J.D. (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: *Scarlett fever
*Sofia Coppola Talks About Lost In Translation, Her Love Story That’s Not “Nerdy”
*Q&A with Sofia Coppola
*Scarlett Fever (Newsweek)
*'I know how to be sour'
*Talking Out Loud
*Sofia's Choice
*The Coppola Smart Mob
-some more articles to use.--J.D. (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles

message: "Lost in Translation was boosted by universal critical acclaim...It has a rating of 95% "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes..."
the 95% (as opposed to 100%) means "universal" can't be used re the critical acclaim, unless with a qualifier, like "near-universal". needs changing to avoid being logically contradictory. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  reviews section 

message: Ive tried to make an edit and its gone awry.
Please help me. 81.156.136.199 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are incorrect and unhelpful – as usual.  This film is not a Japanese co-production as there are no Japanese companies involved in the production.  It does not matter what AFI says, WP has its own standards for determining a film's nationality, and that means Japan must be left out.  Please stop being repeatedly disruptive. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Then whats that then? http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b8999854e 81.156.136.199 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also this company distributed it. Tohokushinsha Film 81.156.136.199 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Distribution is irrelevant.  Lots of films are distributed by foreign companies, that does not mean the film is of said country.  This film was produced by two US film studios, that is the end of the matter. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To give another example, the Ghibli movies are distributed by Disney in the west. This does not make them American movies. Popcornduff (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. But these 4 films are distributed by British companies but they are not British The Hudsucker Proxy, The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading and Hail, Caesar!. And also these 2 are distributed by American companies but that doesnt mean they are American The World's End (film) and Grimsby (film). So can you please help me with these 6 pages? 81.156.167.221 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong.  You have been corrected repeatedly but persist in pushing your opinion.  I suggest you stop. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we continue this on my talkpage? 81.156.167.221 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  A public discussion involving multiple editors should take place in a public place.  Besides, changing the location of the discussion won't change the fact that you are wrong both in terms of your understanding of the facts and WP's policies. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. But if you listen to me a bit more then you will realize that the edits I would like to make are actually not as "harmful" as you think. 81.156.167.221 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits go against the facts, policy, and logic – so, yes, I think they are very harmful.  This is the last comment I will make to you on this subject. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lost in Translation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216010832/http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=57 to http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=57
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414022213/http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/fall2003/features/tokyo_story.php to http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/fall2003/features/tokyo_story.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can we remove the final sentence of the lede? Not only does it add much information to call a film as "often regarded as one of the best films", but it can't really be verified in any sense. How do you define "regarded as one of the best"? Box office sales? Critics reviews? Awards? It just seems like a weasel word here. ChunyangD (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, killed. Popcornduff (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

text: yes, agree too Tsmaster544 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Best film of the 2000s" comment