I really, really think this article should take precedence over the Low album. Most people would be searching for the film as opposed to a 2001 album by an obscure band only known for 1 or 2 songs in the 90's. Could someone please change it so that it redirects to the film page. Obviously that note would still remain if there was someone looking for the album.Feudonym (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the change proposed by Feudonym. --DJ Tricky (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started the process by changing the redirect from Things We Lost In The Fire to here. Also added new redirect Things we lost in the fire, also pointing here. --DJ Tricky (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the redirect back to the disambiguation page. The film did poorly while the album is considered an indie success. They deserve equal weight now. Bobomejor (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the film's stature inevitably decreases over time (as it has already), I believe the album will once again warrant direct linkage. Re: Bobomejor - The album will always be considered an indie success whereas the film will always be considered a general failure. How can we put a "shitty" film above a "classic" album? --68.178.43.163 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely funny to read this talk page section in retrospect. Oh yeah, more people are really searching for this forgotten film than an album by the "obscure band" Low. Hilarious. tomasz. 06:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if this film is named after the Low album? If so, please add that tidbit to the article, along with a reference. --Charolastra charolo 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody knows. Perhaps both Low and the film producers got this phrase from somewhere else? Badagnani 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album title comes from a line in the song "Closer," which is track 11 on the record. Bobomejor (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
