Talk:Bad Day at Black Rock

Unmarked spoilers
 KEEP SPOILERS UNDER A SPOILER WARNING. In the five years since this article's creation, and through dozens of edits, it has displayed a MAJOR reveal in the first sentence of the initial short description, potentially spoiling the film for thousands upon thousands of people -- including myself!

Speaking in the name of everyone whose naïveté and/or apparently over-optimistic expectations of Wikipedia's "dedicated" "editors" (and especially those of the WikiProject Films project) ruined this beautiful film, I say: Thanks a lot, assholes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.197.11.30 (talk • contribs).
 * Sorry, this ship has long sailed! That is, spoilers are in, I never took part in the debate, nor did I want to. Luigibob (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One arm or paralyzed arm
I listen to the DVD commentary and the person stated he had a paralyzed arm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2008‎ (UTC)


 * Good point. I was under the impression he was not amputated. That is not clear in the film. I think that needs to be dealt with in the plot summary. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hondo or Honda?
The article currently says this was adapted from the short story "Bad Day at Hondo" by Howard Breslin and gives IMDb as a source. I only see that as a working title there, while other sources  give the short story title as "Bad Time at Honda". Can anyone confirm one way or the other?-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The general opinion seems to be "Hondo". AMCKen (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "Honda". The definitive answer would be to get a copy of The American Magazine. - Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)  >>> Which can be seen here.

Jeep headlight
Notice that in the final shootout, one headlight of the Jeep smokes for several seconds as the lens is shot out but leaving the burning filament intact. AMCKen (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Statistics
Under Critical response, is it statistically significant that 25 reviews are 96% positive? I say that final paragraph should be removed until a larger sampling of public opinion is available. BrianWilloughby (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries are not scholarly papers. Besides, there are plenty of published papers in reputable journals that used smaller samples than 25. The percent positive may change with a bigger sample size, but there's no need to remove it just because it doesn't meet peer-review specs. After all, few peers meet peer-review specs. BubbleDine (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the question reflects a misunderstanding. As I understand it, the "Rotten Tomatoes" website collects all of the published reviews (written by professional critics) thay can get their hands on.  As such, there is no "sampling" involved.  And if there is no sampling, no questions of "statistical significance" arise. Nandt1 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bad Day at Black Rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822150048/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3718/year/1955.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3718/year/1955.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)