Talk:Panic Room

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Resources

 * Cause For Alarm
 * For 'Panic,' Foster plays it cool as a tough mom
 * Panic Room & The Others: Home sinister home
 * Diabetes in the Movies
 * Opening a Door to Panic Rooms

Nicole Kidman - Uncredited voice on the phone
If Nicole Kidman is uncredited, how can she be listed here? Is there something to back this up? DVD extra, perhaps? If nothing can be found, I'll delete the line.--ML5 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed.--ML5 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible error in "plot" section of article
In the plot section of the article, it says that the girl / daughter (played by Stewart) character has "diabetes". I believe what it should say is that she has "hypoglycemia". Diabetes = HIGH blood sugar Hypoglycemia = LOW blood sugar if you watch the movie it's pretty clear that her blood sugar is going too low. Hence, hypoglycemia. As a counterpoint it is possible i suppose that she does in fact have diabetes and took too much insulin before going to bed, and that is the reason that her blood sugar is crashing, but it seems an overly complicated explanation. Occam's Razor and all that. I hope I did this correctly. I have never ever edited a page or posted to a talk thingy before, so if i did something incorrectly, i apologize for my noob-itis. 76.28.0.253 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have searched and it appears that it was portrayed as diabetes in the film, but that they got it all wrong and backwards—there are multiple websites complaining bitterly and going down a list of many things they got wrong. So, you are quite logical in your deductions but you didn't count human error in as one of the simplest explanations:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis section rather useless
I am quite baffled by the Analysis section. Maybe it could be rewritten as a Mentions list, but it might also need some trimming. Right now it reads like a summary of 3 undergrad sociology papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.211.36 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "a Mentions list". It is appropriate to have such sections, and the sources are reliable: Journal of Medical Humanities, Surveillance & Society, Visual Anthropology, and The Journal of American Culture. These are hardly undergraduate papers or even thesis dissertations. The Featured Article American Beauty (film) has a similar section. MOS:FILM has guidelines about these kinds of sections. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

i have to agree, it's essentially free advertising for writers and political pundits that doesn't really add anything to the article and isn't particularly relevant to something that's supposed to be encyclopedic. 47.182.145.242 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not free advertising. The academic commentary was not written to be included in Wikipedia articles. The commentary was published in reliable sources and qualifies for use here. WP:PLOT says, "Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." Contemporary reviews reflect the reception at the time, but significance is best established retrospectively, and the commentary in these sources do that. See American Beauty (1999 film) and Tender Mercies, which are Featured Articles that have such commentary, meaning that such commentary has been validated in the Featured Article Candidacy process. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that whilst the American Beauty analysis section is somewhat balanced and relevant, and transcribes generally relatable angles of perception of the movie, this section here is consistently terrible and contains multiple personal POVs that are given undue weight for no apparent reason, some of them being ridiculously unrelatable (the first one, namely). Visual Anthropology has a -terrible- SJR of 0.21, and the article in question has been cited a meager amount of 7 times. This do not and cannot represent sufficient authority to push such an absurd and personal POV. I definitely recommend heavily rewriting that whole section, and banning the troll responsible for it from making further edits (somehow, this guy finds funny to revert any edit done here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.35.196.253 (talk) 04 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panic Room. 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/20111005205005/http://www.adg.org/?art=2002_award to http://www.adg.org/?art=2002_award
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307155929/http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta3.php to http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta3.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)