Talk:Exam (2009 film)

Similarities to The Method
An author recently noted the similarity to "El Método" (The Method), and went as far as noting on that wiki page that this film was a 'remake'. I see no formal authorship credits or lineage references in my searchings so I don't believe it is appropriate to state anything but similarity (and notably the use of the work 'striking' immediately raised a red flag in my book as to the intent behind the edit - finding expectedly the mirror edit by that user of that film's wiki page without citing any references).

I have no relationship to either films or either filmmaker, but rather I feel the edit was a hijack in it's original form. If there is a lawsuit or credits arbitration that comes to light then it may warrant more than a passing note, but until then I feel it can only be declared a similarity and not framed via a thinly-veiled plagiarism statement.

(noting that IMBD seems to have also suffered a similar dangling change - the film is declared as a 'remake of The Method' but yet the writing credits have not been modified at all, which should be true if this is a formally declared precursor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.116.219 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In the future, you should add comments to the bottom of the page. People might not see your addition if you add it to the top.  I didn't see this recent addition.  I don't see any reason to separate the Screen Geek review from the rest of the reception.  I'm not convinced that Screen Geek is even a reliable source, but it seems alright.  You're right that we can't speculate as to remakes, ripoffs, or inspirations.  That would be original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Copying
It says its coming from http://english.ohmygore.com/exam-card-1258197.html but there is a disclamer on the website at the bottom of the page saying it is coming from imdb, so I dont know if that changes anything
 * Thanks. No, it doesn't. IMDb is copyrighted, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Disease and medicine
Should the background of a highly fatal disease and the medicines needed to combat it be mentioned in the plot summary ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Budget
A lot of reviewers write that this movie is a "low-budget" production and I'm willing to believe them. However, I'm unable to find the budget anywhere, not even a guessed/approximate budget. Does anyone have a (reliable) source that gives more information? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/plotsummary. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. The move request says "Exam (2009 film) → Exam (2009 film)", which is the same title. Therefore it makes no sense, and people are talking at cross purposes below. The long term title is Exam (film), so that's where it should reside until and unless a successful move request is completed. I will reopen this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Exam (2009 film) → Exam (2009 film) – The article has been at Exam (film) for the past 5 years however has today moved the article from "Exam (film)" to "Exam (2009 film)" as there's already 2003 film called Exam (2003 film),

The 2009 film is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC and the 2003 one is pretty much unknown to everyone except those in Romania, So instead of move-warring I'd figure I'd start a discussion & get consensus, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 13:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I also propose Exam (disambiguation) gets deleted but I'll leave that up to the community, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCF. If the 2009 film was the primary topic, it would be at Exam.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Query: Are you proposing to move Exam (2009 film) back to Exam (film)? It's not clear what this request is for. PC78 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support moving back to Exam (film).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: following WP:NCF there are two possibilities:
 * If the film is the primary topic it would not be disambiguated, i.e. it would have to be at Exam.
 * Otherwise, as with Titanic where all films carry (xxxx year) as disambiguation even though the 1997 film is best known, it should be disambiguated the same way.
 * Assuming that there is consensus that the film is not the primary topic, I followed WP:NCF when renaming the article. Inwind (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Especially after looking at the arguments in the precedurally closed above discussion, it's clear a majority favor moving the article. I find these arguments stronger on the whole, citing the problem of WP:PARTIALDAB as well as WP:NCF. Cúchullain t/ c 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Exam (film) → Exam (2009 film) – I am reopening this following the confused move request above. Note that I oppose the move, so should not count as a nominator. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging     who participated in the discussion above.


 * Oppose. The 2009 film is much more long term significant and commonly used compared with the obscure 2003 film, so should have the Exam (film) title, as indeed it has consistently for the past five years. The 2003 film can continue to be hatnote linked as Exam (2003 film). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - First off I apologize for the confusing request above - The whole thing had completely confused me ...., Anyway Oppose as this film is the most notable one out of the 2, (Thanks for moving the article back and restarting this - Much appreciated), – Davey 2010 Talk 16:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCF and because I'm not a partial disambiguation fan. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCF and my comment above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * RfC it. Seriously, this issue of partial disambiguation pops up at WP:RM every other day. Wouldn't it be better to try and thrash out a broader, community-wide concensus one way or the other? PC78 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support that idea in principal, but I think we all know it'll go on for a month (at least) with a no-consensus, with nothing coming out of it. Not that I want to sound like Captain Buzzkill....  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as per WP:NCF. Until that RfC is held, articles like this must be moved to the more specific disambiguation: it's required under WP:NCF. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not required. NCF is just a guideline, and is in contradiction to both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and guidelines for other topic areas that allow partial disambiguation. For WP:CONSISTENCY, if we allow Thriller (album) to be a primary topic, we can allow this to be one too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how it's handled currently. Like I said – failing an RfC on this, the current practice is that this must be further disambiguated to Exam (2009 film) (as per the WP:NCF Titanic example). If people want to change that, they can launch an RfC on it (I'd follow an RfC on this with interest). But, for right now, there is ample recent precedent that the current article needs to (and likely will) be further disambiguated with the year. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Exam flim
Any one please Translate to Tamil Language Velmurugangr (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19
This article mentions the film was influenced by covid. How is that possible, given the film was released a decade before? 72.139.202.24 (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)