Talk:Shortbus

message: There are already many reivews linked the bottom of this article.  There really is no need for this one (http://www.raymondvandewiel.nl/labels/Shortbus.html Critical Review of 'Shortbus'), as it is just a link to a person's personal blog.Sigil7 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: The film contains two major anti-stereotypes: there is no Jewish  therapist ("Ruth"), but an Asian. And , Asian women are sexually not happy.This is not the case. The durex studies showed e.g. that South East Asian women are sexually the most sexually satisfied in the world, while Eastern European women were the least. "Shortbus" is the newest avantgarde piece of the "sexual revolution" . Never seen so many depressed androgynous people in one place. Even the Asian actress is a masculinized Europiform Sinid .From the evolutionary psychological perspective , one could state again that much promiscuity and carelessness together  with not enough reproduction and high-investment parenting among White Americans will lead to leftist-induced further decline of the power of the Whites compared to the Jews and Chinese . Produced by a homosexual son of a gracile WASP army general.But what  the father defended , is destroyed by the son now elegantly  (of course , not all people can see that).But nevertheless ,this film is a great inspiration. Remember, remember the 5th of November...80.138.183.177 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does this have to do with improving the article about the movie?  Please remember that this talk page is here to discuss the article about the movie and not the movie itself.  Oh, and do please keep in mind WP:NOR. --StuffOfInterest 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political message of the film  

message: Could the editor who posted the unattributed claims tag please follow its directions and indicate here what comments are felt to be unattributed? There are a couple of statements in the intro that probably apply, but you're supposed to indicate on the talk page exactly what isn't attributed so this can be more easily rectified. Thanks. 23skidoo 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag. Without an indication of which parts of article are felt to be unattributed claims or constitute original research, the tag isn't really useful. Eldestone 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unattributed claims tag

message: I've added some photos. They are press release movie stills and I consider them fair use. Eldestone 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: The link Paul Dawson is to a Canadian lacrosse player. Is this right??? Eldestone 08:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely not the correct Paul Dawson.  I've updated this page to use the same "Paul Dawson (actor)" link as found on PJ DeBoy's page, but unfortunately actual content for Paul Dawson the actor doesn't seem to be available here yet. There's possibly enough info on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367027/ and Paul's MySpace page http://www.myspace.com/pauldawsonnyc to work up a stub. 09:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The right [[Paul Dawson]]?

message: Is it me or an acoustic version of  November Rain is performed just before Justin Bond sing "In the end" ?--185 lbs 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November Rain 

message: :Image:ItalianSBposter.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 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 12:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ItalianSBposter.jpg

message: :Image:Shortbusposter.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 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 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shortbusposter.jpg

message: :Image:SmallItalSB.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 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 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SmallItalSB.jpg

message: What does this have to do with the article?? It seems to be just floating there 74.229.215.99 (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, but it was replaced with the caption "John Bair animation", which isn't very helpful.  The text of the article mentions his work on the "cityscape" but I still don't understand what the image is demonstrating.  Powers T 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening credits start with close-ups of this model of the Statue of Liberty, then pan-and-zoom thru the cityscape.  A still of the cityscape might be informative, since those sequences appear at various times during the film as a scene-setting technique, but this specific image (which isn't at all representative of the look of the cityscape) isn't particularly relevant. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the image itself is unexplained: what do "new version" and "old version" mean, for example?  Powers T 15:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statue of Liberty art

message: This movie went way beyond the R status. If it was R, children underage 17 could have seen it with a parent or guardian. Since this was unrated and way beyond the R status did they ban children from seeing it. I know if it was on the internet there would be a statement saying no one under 18 shall view the content. I did not see this mention in this article, does anyone have any sources for it having or not having a ban on children from seeing it.--98.172.115.234 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I'm in Australia, and while I didn't see it at the cinema, I can advise that the DVD (101 mins) is rated "R 18+ restricted", and advises "High level sex, Actual sexual activity", so I don't think it was censored in any way. Personally, I would probably have reservations about allowing my children to watch it, but to be completely honest, I would worry a lot more about violent video games and degrading types of pornography than this. Then again, I'm an old tree-hugger from way back. :P ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 03:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a ban on children (underage 18) seeing this 

message: I've not seen this film yet so maybe it does make sense when watching, but either way this should need explaining: are Alex and Caleb the same? And Jamie and Eric? Both of them are said to be used in the same way (i.e., Alex is described as James's stalker, and then so is Caleb; Jamie is described as James's boyfriend and Eric is said to be in an relationship with James as well) and furthermore Alex & Caleb are said to be played by the same actor. Whether the characters use a pseudonym in the film or not, I think it should be addressed to clear up confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.70 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - unless "Eric" is another character in the film, names used throughout for each character should be consistent. Esprix (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall there being a character named "Alex", and there is no reference in the IMDb credits. In regards to the stalker, his name is definitely Caleb. User:Violet Fae 17 September 2011  —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion in plot summary