Talk:Carrie (2002 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:CARRIE2002.JPG
Image:CARRIE2002.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Comments -- This plot summary is somewhat different from what's in the movie that I saw. Part of the story told here, such as the police being involved, is not found in the 2002 movie. I also dispute the end of the plot summary. Sue didn't rescue Carrie in the bathtub, nor did Carrie's mother try to revive her. Not in the movie I saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.204.153 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad English
Why have people editing this article been using nonsense, sentence fragments, and bad grammar? --Wykypydya (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection denied
I put a request for semi-protection but it was denied because the vandalism isn't recent enough. --67.159.68.1 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Genre
Hey,, I noticed that you tagged the genre listing, saying that the lack of third-party sources violate WP:SUBJECTIVE. However, I may disagree. The policy especifically say that is an effort to avoid "effusive" descriptions like "X is the world's greatest soprano" or "Shakespeare is the best author". The case here is very different, as no one is claiming Carrie is a good film, etc. Also, I understand that primary sources should not be used to support exceptional claims, but how the film's genre (a mere description) fit on this category? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Gabriel! The main issues i'm having with this is from these elements of WP:SUBJECTIVE, name that it is "appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public" and that "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." The main issue is, we should not use the own companies interpretation of how they want to promote their product. (in this case, MGM). This was a relative large TV film as well, so it should not be too hard to find better sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)