Talk:Little Darlings

message: Not sure where to begin with this article, just that it needs some work. Given Tatum O'Neal's legal problems today, this page will probably get more attention. I'm flagging it for clean up. Robko626 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not sure where to begin".  When you figure it out, tell us what your concerns are, THEN put your warning tag back in. TechnoFaye Kane 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Problems

message: I removed an exploitative image that was a still frame from the movie. Discuss before reverting this edit.Lkleinow (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Selafim Cash reverted again without discussion, to avoid a third revert I'm requesting a third eye. The image Selafim keeps adding is simply a nipslip and adds nothing to the article about the movie.Lkleinow (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd like to hear from Selafim Cash before sharing my thoughts--Work permit (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't appreciate the personal attack request you rephrase per WP:NPA. I asked for the third eye rather than do a hasty revert. I'm not the first editor to point out the nature of the image, see the image's own talk page.Lkleinow (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no reason screenshot of actress who wore swimsuit can't be included in movie article. Wikipedia doesn't have such strict rule. No strong reason to keep removing it exists. Some editors seem to react excessively.　—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.217.204.164 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing about having a rule against pictures such as this one. The rules just exist as guides, that is what WP:IAR is about. The idea is to create the best possible article, and for reasons which I explained above I believe the picture should be removed. This is really more of an issue for RFC, so I guess I'll open an RFC on this issue. --Nn123645 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think another way to examine this issue is to ask if the image demonstrates or expands upon a topic in the article, not whether such an image is wrong or inappropriate on the grounds of ethical standards. I would agree with Nn123645 as to the technical inadequates of the image, but there is a strong content-based argument for removing the image, addressing the unsigned user's concerns. The image only relates to the content of the article in that it underscores the sexual content found in the movie. However, it is not a neutral demonstration of these concepts. Instead of reinforcing the article's content, the image functions by evoking male sexist ideas about women. It is sexual because it presents a woman as a sexual object to arouse the viewer. The name of the woman and the fact she is in a lake is incidental. Communicating using sexism is not neutral, nor does it have a practical connection to the article (the article would have to address this function of the image and how the image is a demonstration of sexual objection found in the movie, if it is at all). As with a still shot from any part of the movie, there needs to be a justification for displaying that shot. Taking away the sexist rationale for the image leaves no other reason to keep it in the article. Nn123645's comment explains why. For the image to remain, the article's content would have to have a direct, necessary relationship to the image, where the article's meaning would be reduced if the image were removed. This is not the case here. --Malecasta (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Removed

message: I think the Roger Ebert quote used in this article is misleading.  It gives the impression of a more favorable review than what he actually gave.  The full quote is as follows:
"Their [Angel and Ferris's] whole personal feud, in fact, feels phony, and parts of this movie are so badly handled that we can only marvel that "Little Darlings" somehow does succeed in treating the awesome and scary subject of sexual initiation with some of the dignity it deserves."
Does anyone else think the fragmented quote is misleading?  I'll let some other editors have some input, but for the time being, I'm going to add an ellipsis at the beginning of the quote since it was actually edited from a longer sentence. Jphillst (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "somehow" is enough to cover the issue. —MJBurrage(T•C) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebert quote taken out of context?

message: Not sure where this should go, but unlike most "teen films", all the actors playing teens were actually teens.  Filmed in the summer of 1979, their ages then were:
* Nicolas Coster	as Mr. Whitney	(44)
* Margaret Blye	as Ms. Bright	(36)
* Armand Assante	as Gary Callahan	(29)
* Alexa Kenin	as Dana	(17)
* Kristy McNichol	as Angel Bright	(16)
* Tatum O'Neal	as Ferris Whitney	(15)
* Matt Dillon	as Randy Adams	(15)
* Krista Errickson	as Cinder Carlson	(15)
* Cynthia Nixon	as Sunshine	(13)
* Jenn Thompson	as Penelope	(11)
—MJBurrage(T•C) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Actor ages

message: It's wrong about Angel's feelings after losing her virginity. She was devastated. Perhaps the author was relying more on the novel? 207.59.211.146 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary wrong 

message: I'm currently in possession of a DVD copy of the film, borrowed from a library.  The UPC is 12500274135; the DVD is labeled "DVD Video" (and seems to be such, and not a DVD±R), though no publisher is given.  It's NTSC, pillarboxed and all region/Region 0.  The BIG DVD List -- Michael's Movie Mayhem doesn't list it.  Bootleg?
This is partly because I'm curious about the origin of the DVD, and partly because the article currently states "Lionsgate has announced the release of the film on DVD, but has yet to be released", though a search of Lionsgate's site turned up nothing. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  Examination of the back of the disc shows that it is a DVD±R, though how it came to be part of a library's collection is open to question. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amazon.de has the DVD for sale ; it's listed as an all-region edition, said to have been available for 12 years (if I'm understanding the German correctly). It would be interesting to know if the DVD has all the songs from the original theatrical release. Mathew5000 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I watched it and liked it, but I'm not inclined to buy it.  (I originally became interested because the two lead characters were the subject of a comment/joke in a television episode or another movie.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD release(?) 

message: And lengthy, repetitive swaths of it.
Arcsoda (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section suffers from subjective analysis