Talk:I Spit on Your Grave

message: There's a minor mistake in the Plot section - I quote "... As he nears orgasm, she picks up a knife she has hidden under the bathmat (which she took from Matthew—he had brought it with him to kill her) and cuts his genitals." 
Who had bought it with who? Matthew, the light-retard, stole it from the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper had it next to a lump of cheese. 
Just thought I'd point that out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.166.114.170 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor mistake

message: I removed the line "The film destroyed the careers of the actors who participated." from the article as I don't think it's substantiated. Reviewing the actor credits on IMDB for this film, it seems that this was the only film many of the actors ever appeared in. Camille Keaton, the lead actress did go on to appear in five more films after this, and her previous career seems to mostly have been third or fourth billing in Italian horror films.--Chuckhoffmann 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed line 

message: I thought it was important to add why Zarchi made this film.  All the information can be verified in the Millenium Edition of the film on DVD when you listen to the director's commentary.
:: Tnx to anonymous editor for this Zarchi's explanation which reveals the art critics' hypocrisy and ignorance about victimization symptoms, first described by Frank Ochberg  this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Zarchi's response 

message: Shouldn't the plot section begin with a spoiler warning? CannibalSmith 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: This film was never banned in New Zealand. Because the ratings decision isn't available in the public database (it doesn't go back that far) I put in a request for information with the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Here's the response:
:Thank you for your email. The film I Spit on Your Grave was classified as 'R20 contains graphic violence, content may disturb' by the Chief Censor of Films in 1985. It has not been classified as objectionable in New Zealand.
:Under the current legislation (the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993) the DVD is classified as 'R18 contains graphic violence and sexual violence'.
:Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
:Regards, Michelle Baker, Advisor, Information Unit, Office of Film and Literature Classification, Te Tari Whakarōpū Tukuata, Tuhituhinga
So, please don't add New Zealand to the list of countries that 'banned' this film. --Dom (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: :Image:Ispit.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ispit.jpg

message: In the Release section it is mentioned after being submitted to the MPAA they suggested some of the violence be taken out but didn't mention which scenes, the MPAA never suggests which scenes to cut for any reason. This includes violence, nudity, sexual content, whatever reason they provide for not accepting the movie. The MPAA never describes what scene contains the objectionable material. The paragraph leads one to believe this was an exception or the MPAA was being particularly difficult for this film. It is not the MPAA's responsibility to critique individual scenes, they only state if a movie passes or fails the rating the film is trying to achieve and gives cause, like gratuitous violence, too much nudity, sexual references etc. It is then up to the film maker to decide if he wishes to cut some scenes, rewrite etc. and then resubmit, or to just appeal, or drop the whole thing.--75.17.215.115 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release 

message: The poster says Five Men, when really it's four. Are we sure this is not a draft for the 2010 poster? Delierajaytoday (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: There is not a lot of information on the film's production, the section talking about the film's production is also way too short and needs to be expanded in more detail so it's balanced with the other sections in the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production section needs to be expanded 

message: This article has several important sections that are underdeveloped or unsourced. The production section is way too short, and is disproportionate compared to the information on the film's reception, this section needs to be expanded so that the article give more balanced coverage on the film. The production section is also missing important citations on its information and needs to include the sources of its information. The release section of the article, specifically the information on its theatrical release is unsourced and does not include proper citations of its information, this portion is also too short and fragmented in its writing and should be rewritten so that this issue is corrected with more information added as well. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's standards and guidelines of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I too feel like this article needs serious cleanup from top to bottom. I'm interested in doing so, but first I'm gonna need a lot of references regarding this film's conception to adhere with MOS:FILM. Also, I feel like its controversy and reception sections are what's expanding the content, at least by cursory glance. Gee, I wish I had a Blu-ray of this film. Those special features could help with the production section.  Bluesphere 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on I Spit on Your Grave. 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/20120406094149/http://www.eofftv.com/notes/d/day/day_of_the_woman_notes.htm to http://www.eofftv.com/notes/d/day/day_of_the_woman_notes.htm
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) 18:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:I Spit on Your Grave (film series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress