lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:8mm (film)

message: Great movie but highly sadophobic. --Nemissimo 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I found :Image:8MM.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspecified source for [[:Image:8MM.jpg]]

message: :Image:8MM.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 Wikipedia articles 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.
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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:8MM.jpg
Talk:Spies Like Us

message: ---I just saw this great comedy again today!  One correction that needs to be made for this article in the plot summary.  It isn't the missle that destroys the MTV satellite, it is the misfiring laser weapon that misses the inbound ICBM and hits the MTV satellite ('cool!'). Yanqui9 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the movie after the missile is launched, Dan Akroyd's character says "...it will be 28 minutes before the rocket detonates above it's target – somewhere inside the Continental United States." He never said a specific city. Later in the film before the rocket is diverted, it shows it coming down above a land mass. I went to Google Earth to see if it could match it up with the Detroit area (as the article had said) and it looks nothing like it. Too me it looked more like Long Island, but even that didn't match up. I believe it's just a matte painting of no specific area. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: The page on the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby "Road to" movies states that "Spies Like Us" was style as homage to those films.  Should this be reverse linked? Somersetlevels (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Homage

message: Chuck (TV series) pays homage multiple times
* Emmett Millbarge  as a character in seasons 2 & 3
* Chevy Chase starred as season 2's main villain
* In Chuck Versus the Tooth, Chuck and Sarah watch the movie on their couch.
--JLAmidei (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy
Talk:See You Next Wednesday

message: In Kevin Pollak's Chat show #121 John Landis explicitly says he was unaware of the phrase "See you next Tuesday."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.81.158 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, notwithstanding the 2001:A Space Odyssey link, the Tuesday/Wednesday connection might conceivably have encouraged Landis (or Kubrick?) to use the phrase.  But without a citable source, it's just idle speculation. jnestorius(talk) 06:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See You Next Tuesday

message: Updated the Blues Brothers information to point directly to the film's page, and added the extra info about the cinema sign.
--Bbcentral 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blues Brothers

message: "This article about a fictional object, organization, species, or technology is a stub." Is there any way this page could be upgraded from "stub" to "There just isn't any more to say about this"? Chester320 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: Animal House is as famous as anything else Landis directed, but it's not mentioned here--if the line isn't in that film even that fact bears mentioning here.  Does anyone know if it is?--Mobius Soul 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal House

message: I have removed the following from the article as it is pure speculation:
This is a play on words of the backronym "See You Next Tuesday" (C U Next Tuesday), which spells out a vulgar four-letter word.
If you have some evidence, feel free to add it back.
75.17.195.152 (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  backronym? 

message: * First up, there's nothing to say this is a references, and not just him saying he's going to see her next wednesday.
* If it is a reference, it's more likely a reference to 2001 (There are other 2001 refs in B5).  JMS is pretty good with acknowledging refs, so there should be a citation for this somewhere... however, if it is a 2001 ref does it belong here?  The article is geared to Landis refs and refs to Landis... the addition of this one my require a reworking of the article. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babylon 5.
Talk:An American Werewolf in Paris

message: The following item was posted in the since-removed trivia section.  It expands on one sentence of the plot summary, but is not directly cited and would also need to find a home (an 'series continuity' section perhaps?) in the article if people think it worth including.  Squalk25 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:Anaconda (1997 film)

message: The current text implies that anacondas can in fact grow to the enormous sizes portrayed in the film, and pose a major, deadly threat to humans in the Amazon. I'm pretty sure that neither of those statements is correct. The Wikipedia page on Anaconda, the snake, suggests that the greatest verified length for an anaconda is less than 20 feet. Llajwa 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific accuracy 

message: There is a misleading link in the infobox: one of the writers, Hans Bauer appears a German footballer. There are also other film-related articles linking to him. --CiaPan (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Took you a long time to fix... --CiaPan (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix a link 

message: Please fix this nonsense quoted from the plot as of 1-5-2012:
"Sarone himself is killed by the snake. Terri finds a nest of baby anacondas in the building, but the snake arrives and after vomiting up Sarone, chases her up a smoke stack."
The snake chases a dead person who undergoes a sex change after being killled?1archie99 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot does not make sense 

message: The second paragraph under Production is clearly false.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.104.11 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information under Production
Talk:Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid

message: The article mentions tigers in the movie.  I may be mistaken, but I thought it was a panther that the snake attacks, not a tiger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.21.184 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tiger is from the start of the film, which tried to eat the native man, but the snake at the man instead. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiger?

message: Hey why is there no mention of the fact that Anacondas are not found on the Island of Borneo?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.132.167 (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is trivial information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Borneo

message: Why is this film listed under Project New Zealand? There is no mention of the country in the article except for the category. 203.211.75.117 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been removed from that project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You know it is so funny that in reality the longest snake on the planet, the reticulated python which gets up to 32 feet, and are famous for being perhaps the most aggressive and the snake with the most taste for human flesh and has eaten the most people out of all the giant constrictors so I think they could have made the whole film on reticulated pythons instead of anacondas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand?

message: Is it ever specified what part of Borneo the movie takes place in? The IMDB comment boards seem to universally consider it taking place in Indonesian Borneo, but there are also Malaysian place names mentioned in the film. If it is specified what part of Borneo the movie takes place in, it should be added to the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Had doubts about this place.
Location is supposed to be Borneo, which means it was supposed to be Kotabaru instead. Since Kotabaru is in Kalimantan, Borneo. Jesper Ong (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kota Bharu?
Talk:On Dangerous Ground

message: This article is written with a heavy bias toward the musical score and the film itself. This is an encyclopedia: we're not here to analyze the films, just describe them. 75.70.31.151 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted all non-sourced edits and POV edits.  Luigibob (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I have added a comment about how Bernard Herrmann re-used a portion of the score of On Dangerous Ground for the opening theme of the 'Have Gun will Travel TV show. I have linked it to the TV series entry at Wikipedia as well. -- catherine yronwode, not logged in 70.36.137.177 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Herrmann and ''Have Gun will Travel'' 

message: Currently Ida Lupino is featured in the Directed By section as uncredited. There does not seem to be a definitive source that Lupino had uncredited work as a director.
The reference currently used for this claim is NY Times article which states "some say she supervised several scenes in “On Dangerous Ground” when Mr. Ray took ill." This seems ambiguous.
Additionally in  Nicholas Ray's page there are two conflicting sources regarding this.  Ida Lupino has been said to have directed some scenes when Ray was ill. Eisenschitz found no evidence in RKO production files, though at the time she did direct Ray in a screen test for her upcoming production, released in 1951 as Hard, Fast, and Beautiful. 98.153.70.42 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Directed By Ida Lupino (uncredited) ?
Talk:The Savage Innocents

message: Some reviewers of this film say Quinn was accused of murder because "he accidently killed the priest because he wouldn't sleep with his wife".  It was either deliberate (murder) or an accident. It cannot be both. What was it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder or accident? 

message: There's no real point to it, no sources, and it just reads like a vanity edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.150.220 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated attempts to bring up high school in Downe's Grove, IL 
Talk:The Bitter Tea of General Yen

message: Frank Capra claimed this film was banned in Great Britain and the British Commonwealth, but according to Joseph McBride's biography of Capra, it was not banned, but passed by the censors with some cuts.  McBride implies Capra tells this story as an excuse for why the film was a financial failure. So I have changed the sentence about the film being banned and thus losing money.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.233.214 (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 
Talk:Day of the Dead 2: Contagium

message: Nothing much how do I become to be a writer  Leahavila (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: What makes something an "unofficial sequel"?  If they have the rights to produce a sequel, that seems "official" to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial sequel
Talk:Invaders from Mars (1953 film)

message: The subordinate aliens are twice referred to in the article as "mutants", and this term is wikilinked. It is also pointed out that they are "mute". If the author thinks that these terms are related, he/she is certainly mistaken. "Mute" and "mutant' are completely unrelated terms. If otherwise, where is the evidence in the film that these humanoids are mutants? Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutants?

message: This article misses out the traumatic impact that this movie had on a generation of young children when it was released for television broadcast in the late 1950's ('57, '58?) and many local stations chose to broadcast it (as was common in those days) around the supper hour, when baby boomer children by the million at that time watched TV over dinner, and strongly identified with the young central character. Here's a typical reaction gleaned from a few minutes of net search - I've seen many similar descriptions over the years: http://usersites.horrorfind.com/home/horror/tonyrivers/IFMblog.html :
"I can imagine similar things happening to other young boys and girls (who were around the same age as Jimmy Hunt) who saw Invaders back in 1953 when it was first released (plus over the years whenever it has been shown either in theaters or on TV); I had nightmares for a week! Instead of Jimmy Hunt, It was me as the young boy who saw the flying saucer land and the martians using their weapons to create tunnels under the ground. In my nightmares, instead of Leif Erickson and Hillary Brooke, it was my parents who were under the control of the Martians." 
That also pretty much sums up my experience at age 5 1/2 in 1957.
Here's another corroboration: "Invaders from Mars has a reputation for scaring the hell out of children because it's that rare film engineered around primal adolescent fears. The nightmare is not only shown from little David's point of view, it is also restricted to his frame of reference and his experiences." http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s97InvadersB.html
173.180.151.49 (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: First TV broadcast
Talk:Toolbox Murders

message: In the article it says, "While the film is remake of the 1978 film of the same name, the plots are completely different and unrelated." It sounds kind of strange saying a remake is unrelated to the plot of the original, but I havent seen the film and maybe once you've seen it that makes sense. Where can I purchase this movie anyways?
-Lindsey8417
:The film is a remake in name only. It is was made with the intention of it being a remake, due to the success of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. When it was made though, it wound up being a remake in name only. All remakes wind up with changes made but this one went to the extreme and ultimately changed just about everything. The original was a slasher film of sorts based on a psycho killer while the second one was more based on the supernatural killer. Both deal with the killer using tools and such to murder their victims. So yes, it IS a remake but more in the sense that the company that owned the name, chose to use the name and market it as a remake. I know that most video stores have the new one for rent while Netflix offers both versions. JohnBWatt
:: Ok, that makes sense now. I'll have to watch the film and write more about this, but for now I think someone that has should at least tell about the "sort of remake" issue about this film in the article. I mean, its kind of confusing. I'll add a film info box and as much info as I can until I actually see the film. - Lindsey8417
I'm working on the article right now. Might need help with gathering info on the film's production.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Editing

message: This article is missing several points of key information on the film. It is missing information on the film's production and release (Particularly information on the announcement that the film was being made and information on the film's development. Also more reviews can be added since there is not very many individual reviews for the film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be expanded 

message: This article deserves a lot more attention that what it has currently been given. The reception of the film, although mixed, has been significant in the fact that some critics have praised the film as the director's return to form (much like M. Night Shyamalan's recent films). More information needs to be added to show this as well as information on the film's production and release. Given time, hopefully this article should get the attention it so deserves.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Hooper's Return to Form?
Talk:Wicked Little Things

message: 76.28.1.45 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

message: Two Synopsis'?
76.28.1.45 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Exorcist: The Beginning

message: I was able to watch this film first on HBO an it was really original, had mystery, depth and more believable characters. When I watched the Dominion prequel (I thought it was the same film), I was really disappointed. Why did they remove the good scenes and characters and why did they even bother making this when the first prequel was superior in every way? Also, the CG in Dominion was so obvious (e.g. hyenas which looked more like monsters), it felt like it was a shame that the film ever got produced. 
-Ayababtu
:Yes, because you got it backwards. Even though the other Dominion was released second, it was the original version. The studio feared it would not do well, and hired Schrader to remake it. He used some of the same footage and eventually came up with The Beginning, with more action and horror added. But it did not do as well as the studio hoped, and they later decided to release the original also, under the title Dominion" Prequel to the Exorcist. So it was the remake that was actually released first. I know, what a mess! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Harlin who directed the re-shot version. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the better version of the prequel 

message: In the infobox the budget is 50 million but in the Production section it is "over 90 million". Which is true? Danial Bass (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The source (bombreport.com) is not a reliable source, so it has been removed.  The source in the infobox says "[...] not much for a film that cost a reported $80 million ($30 million for the Schrader version and $50 for the Harlin one".  As you may or may not know, there are two versions.  The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (Schrader version).  I made that clear in the reference by adding the quote.  Hope that helps. Mike Allen 00:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting budget amount
Talk:Whirlpool (1950 film)

message: The posts above actually bring no proofs regarding the Nov date, just conjectures. The AFI guys used those 1949 magazines just to trace a kind of "chronology", as usual. The fact that those Nov magazines were consulted doesn't mean it had a release; moreover, there were plenty of in-advance reviews. Like this one. They used to write these to inform/help theatremen. Besides, on the same magazine issue, there is ACTUAL proof this was released in January 1950, as the AFI confirms. This is a Dec 31 article, and it's among the January titles. And this is the Harrison's Reports listing it under "Beginning of 1950 Season". Further proof is this January article reading "dual world premiere on January 13". This will be changed back to 1950. Regards.KenjiMizoguchi (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date
Talk:The 13th Letter

message: Could we improve the plot summary?
Here is a suggested version:
On taking a job in a rural Quebec hospital, Dr Pearson, a handsome but emotionally damaged Englishman, becomes the focus of the frustrated desires of the town’s women. Two beauties principally contend for him: Cora Laurent, the neurotic young wife of his elderly boss Dr Laurent, and the semi-crippled Denise Tourneur, in whose house he lodges. When anonymous letters implicating Pearson with Mme Laurent start circulating, the atmosphere in the little community becomes tense. After one recipient, a bedridden war hero who is one of Pearson’s patients, commits suicide, his nurse Marie Corbin, who is Cora’s estranged sister, is wrongfully arrested. The ex-soldier’s mother, Mme Gauthier, vows revenge. Laurent then tries to frame Denise but when confronted by Pearson, who has now started an affair with Denise, shifts the blame to his wife Cora. She is put in seclusion at the hospital, where she reveals to Pearson who instigated the letters. Mme Gauthier, who has almost certainly overheard, exacts her vengeance.
--Hors-la-loi 23:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Saint Joan (1957 film)

message: The criticism needs sources. As it stands now, the article is not neutral - AKeen 18:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: According to the article, "However, in both play and film, Joan's last line is 'O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to receive Thy saints? How long, O Lord, how long?'"  In actual fact, Seberg says "who," not "that"; "made," not "madest"; and "your," not "thy."  allixpeeke (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing line 

message: Perhaps mention should be made of an accident during filming of the stake-burning scene, where flames got out of hand and Seberg was burned. On her way to the studio the next day, she was involved in an automobile accident. (Source: Illustrated London News: 1957 Mar 02, pg 347) CFLeon (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Accident during filming