Talk:Dark Country

Dark Country[edit]

All material for the film that has been related states that it is just titled Dark Country, without the 'the'. 173.88.129.35 (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poster[edit]

[1]173.88.129.35 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Section Cleanup[edit]

The plot section may provide excess detail. Also, some of the grammar is inconsistent, such as the phrase "a what happened during the cafe" (which should probably be written as "what happened at the cafe"), and is written in a manner consistent with poor language translation, so it was either written by someone who did not know English well, or, more likely, translated from another language using an online translator and then pasted to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.100.30 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...[edit]

Has anyone here actually seen the movie? It really feels that nobody actually bothered to sit down and watch it. it feels like someone copied and pasted a plot summary from a review or something. I mean , for God's sake, the first half of the movie looked like a really bad porno. Just saying, this movie is really getting a slap on the wrist when it really shouldn't. --67.171.66.108 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception[edit]

This has gotten way out of proportion, merely over 1 single word. The movie has it's good and bad points, but for the most part, it did recieve negative views with a 26% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a site that is generally unbiased. Mixed is generally considered to be between 40-60%. We could simply settle this by saying "negative to mixed reviews" 67.171.66.108 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are equally both positive and negative reviews, which I have cited in the critical reception section, no bias at all, that's why it says mixed and not negative. Also the RT score for this is based on audience reviews, which are not considered reliable.Hellboy42 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you prove it's equal? I'm sure the chance of it being equal is pretty damn low. The reviews really seem to be leaning towards negative anyway. (Judged by past vandalism and the majority of reviews found on the first page of Google seaching.) Also, have you even seen this movie at all? From watching the movie personally, there really are more negatives than positives. (The things they say about the pacing are true. The sex/romance scene crap is about 1/5, if not, 1/4 of the movie.)

And also, for God's sake man, it's just one word on one paragraph about one movie people aren't caring about anymore. People aren't going to give a rat's ass about all the bullshit that's been going on lately. (Wikipedia doesn't care either.) They're either going to look at a review and judge or just go see the movie and judge it from there. So, I vote on it being "negative to mixed reviews" to keep both view points in there and to keep both of us from bitching. Besides, the reviews are slightly biased anyway.67.171.66.108 (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was fine the way it was before and more accurate. You seem to have some weird personal bias against the movie.Hellboy42 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

67, your own personal opinions about the film are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, as is your analysis that the criticisms of some reviewers is "correct". We do not "look at a movie" and then judge the criticism from there. We look at what the actual reliable sources say. Addditionally, we don't need to prove that the reviews are exactly equal in number to use the word "mixed"; that term is genrally used in WP articles for cases where there isn't a significant leaning one way or the other. As to whether or not that applies here, I leave it up to the two of you to figure (though, of course, use dispute resolution if you need outside assistance). However, I do think that the criticism section is a bit excessive; we should be able to summarize much more than we already are, and use substantially fewer quotes. We're not a review aggregator. Finally, IP, please try to keep your tone more neutral and less expletive-laden; while using expletives isn't by itself a violation of our policy on civility, when its taken to an excess like you do above, along with your general ranting tone, it's not acceptable because it inhibits collaborative editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using a condescending tone in your comments against IP users. It's hypocritical to suggest to keep a neutral tone when there is clearly arrogance placed in your post. While arrogance itself can't be reported, you will surely not be respected by the community for such things, even if you are an admin. --OrientalFlowerDemon (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC) OrientalFlowerDemon.[reply]

Well, the comment is from about 5 months ago...but re-reading it now, I don't read it as condescending. I read at as me trying to educate a user who is violating a core rule of Wikipedia (WP:OR) and, in so doing, stop what I recall showed danger of spiralling into an edit-war at the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you consider the comment has a condescending tone is irrelevant. If it can be interpreted as such by another user, then you must be cautious with your words and phrases, regardless of if it was used for educational purposes. It's this sort of thing that gives off a sour impression to both IP's and users alike about Wikipedia and, likewise, should be avoided. Please be careful about posting such comments in the future.--OrientalFlowerDemon (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC) OrientalFlowerDemon[reply]

So, try to help me. I really don't understand what is condescending about that message. Since I don't understand, I can't get better. Also, we should probably continue this on my talk page, since it's not really relevant to this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I would like to wrap this up, for I have other matters to attend to that need my time and this matter doesn't need that much attention. I will say that critical assumptions can be dangerous if used incorrectly and such trivial matters shouldn't be dealt with an excessive manner, for it only gathers unnecessary attention. That is what I'll say and nothing else. I recommend looking at this from the IP's POV and doing some Google searches concerning good and bad experiences on Wikipedia with it's users/admins. You'd be surprised what you will find. With those thoughts in mind, I do believe this matter is closed. --OrientalFlowerDemon (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC) OrientalFlowerDemon[reply]