Talk:Fast Food Nation (film)

Citation
It is missing citation link at the bottom for cite ¹


 * Thanks for pointing that out, i fixed it Mujinga 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Manohla Dargis of the New York Times called "Fast Food Nation" "The most essential political film from an American director since Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11.’"

Ain't that telling? "The most essential political film since Sergei Eisenstein's 'The Battleship Potemkin.'"

WTF
I just watched the movie. . . . . . . ..

wtf describes it quite well in being the point that After viewing the movie and reading the points of the movie seems to be more of a current events movie written by somebody who did alot of drugs or took 15 differant ideas and tried to tie them together in a film. SERIOUSLY WHAT WAS THIS MOVIE ABOUT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.113.12.6 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Worst piece of preachy bullshit I've had to endure in a long time.

Missing Bruce
Bruce Willis is missing form the 'starring' bar. If the list's as exhaustive as it appears to be it'll need him too.

As for the 'most essential film' comment above - what are you getting at? All movie plugs are b0ll0x. Their hyperbole serves the journalist, not the movie. --TresRoque 09:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Peta Sponsorship?
Can someone confirm the relationship between the film and PETA? Not only are there official bloggings related to it, there is a Peta sponsored game about it here. Is the film funded by them in any way?
 * I would not be surprized in any way. The movie felt very manipulative. It seemed little related to fast food restaurants (is ground meat only sold by them?), and more to advancing the idea that "meat is always mixed with shit", comes from animal suffering, causes accidents to people processing it (a foot or leg can get also get caught in simple agricultural machines), so we should all become vegetarians. It would indeed be funny to find the connections of people working on it. Adam Mirowski 10:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FastFoodNation.jpg
Image:FastFoodNation.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fast Food Beef Processor Contracts to Coyotes/Illegal Alien Trafficking
The synopsis seems to be really detailed, but one of the most prevalent themes of the film was the spotlight on how the fast food's beef arm was contracting "coyotes," or smugglers to collect groups of desperate people from Mexico for cheap labor. The many scenes focusing on who drives the vans full of illegals, how they "sell" them to employers, and how they corral them in hotel rooms while they work for wages so low they can't afford to live any other way. This theme was focused on much more than the Bruce Willis or Kris Kristofferson scenes, beginning and ending with the Mexican man who dies alone in the desert. Should a sentence about this be added? 76.172.11.202 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Looks like the page was severely vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.128.5 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Genre of Film
I took the liberty of changing the genre of the film from 'comedy-drama' to 'drama.' By no stretch of the imagination can this film be considered 'comedy' in any way, and I suspect the original designation of 'comedy' drama may have been inserted by some editor paid by the meatpacking industry. Gunnermanz (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here, but you should not have changed the genre before starting the discussion. Your claim that the genre was changed by someone from the industry is silly.  Whether you or I think it's a comedy is irrelevant.  All that matters is what reliable sources say.  None of the critics quoted in the article mention comedy, but only 4 reviews are cited.  The film is in 3 comedy-drama categories, so if the genre is going to be changed, the cats need to be changed, too.  But, not until there has been a real discussion. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  23:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)