Talk:Teeth (2007 film)

plot correction
Correction: the gynecologist is not "examining" Dawn when she bites off his fingers. He has removed his gloves, lubed up his bare hand, and he is painfully "fisting" her. This is a brutal sexual assault, not an examination. 67.76.163.46 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

quote from external site
So it looks like the plot summary was plagiarized from http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1504/

How does Wikipedia feel about plagiarism?


 * Please try and avoid personal attacks on the talk pages. See Wikipedia:Avoid Abuse of Talk Pages and Wikipedia:Good Faith for some good guidelines on proper Wikipedia ettiquette. There are some good guidelines for how to deal with plagiarism as well: Wikipedia:Copywright Infringement and Copywright Problems. We can't permit plagiarism here. However maybe it would be best if someone could take a look at the alledged plagiarism and work to re-write the content? I'm sure this article could be salvaged with some positive co-operative effort. Thanks! 66.17.118.195 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's plagiarism going on, but the original source for the text is actually the film's website, so it looks like someone simply cut and pasted in the official film synopsis. I've remedied the trouble spot with a citation and quote marks.

Malinda E. Berry 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dawn&Tobey-Teeth(film).JPG
Image:Dawn&Tobey-Teeth(film).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 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Trailer
You can see the trailer for this movie HERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Marketing
Should the change in marketing be noted? The first poster presents it as a goofy comedy, wheras the 2nd one presents it as a creepy horror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Teeth (2008)
why is there no article for the new teeth film coming out in 2008? Machete97 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trailers on tv and in cinemas, adverts everywhere etc. It doesn't really need them but here's some web sources I just looked up now - (ask.com search results if you want more)

for some reason IMDb doesn't have any info on it either - unless someone else can find it. Machete97 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

the image in this article is the exact same image as the one in the trailers, adverts and posters for the 2008 film. Machete97 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

the image in the article shows a website at the bottom which says the film is coming out in 2008 Machete97 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is because of the fact that it's the SAME MOVIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.103.53 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even my cable-box's help screen says the movie came out in 2008, not 2007 as the infobox claims. I corrected the year; hopefully the month and date aren't also wrong. RobertGustafson (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia
The 04:31, 7 December 2008 76.182.95.113 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia--Wing (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Man! That was one crazy movie!
Amd to see a lot of them have guts to do so! Man! his movie deserves a clap for being crazy and courageous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.183 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

 * Dawn's vagina dentata is frequently referred to as a mutation, but is sometimes also referred to as an adaptation. Calling it an adaptation is somewhat ironic because evolutionary adaptations are selected by increased reproductive fitness. Fitness is defined as the ability of an organism to reproduce, and a vagina dentata would obviously decrease fitness - some copulative attempts would be aborted, some males would be rendered impotent, and last, if the knowledge of the person's condition was spread, males would avoid any attempts at reproduction.

Or maybe they wouldn't rape people? But what benefit would that have for women? No-genius (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot?
Seems to me that what is presented as plot here is actually a detailed description of the film, more like a outline. I believe what should be presented as plot is a smaller, broader description of the main story, instead of a report of every event that takes place in the film. Do other users agree with me?Kosmonauta (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a read of this and this. Plot descriptions should be as detailed as possible but not exceed 700 words, which is precisely what this plot summary does. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editor, Kosmonauta, that the plot description is overly long and reads like "and then she, and then he" and, IMO, needs to be seriously cut down. This has nothing to do with spoiler issues, and the second link provided takes us to a page, where if we click on the link to the relevant section of the MoS, we can read "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. ". It is overly long, wordy, confusing and I would do it but I've never seen the film. Anyone want to take a stab?  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're replying to a thread over a year old, whatever that user was commenting on is most likely different to the current plot. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree. Less information is NEVER better than more information. 67.76.163.46 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
Undid some vandalism. The actress' name was cut out and some nonsense about playing cards was inserted into the "Plot" section. 24.94.44.253 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there no negative criticism for this astonishingly misandrist, hateful, bigoted, insult to half the human race?
This film is in desperate need of due criticism of its unbelievably sexist and misandrist themes and it's inexcusably hostility it shows to half the human race (apparently too many of the males here are either to blindsighted, deluded, or self-hating, or maybe just stupified and speechless and unwilling how to proceed to address something like this to do something about it). I'm going to scour the internet for there's got to be someone out there with a brian, heart, and conscience to expose this astonishing hateful, bigoted, anti-male piece of garbage for what it is. The article would both be improved immensely by supplying overdue negative criticism to this feature length hate speech. Alialiac (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not really the place for your personal rants... AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All of the victims are basically assholes. On the other hand, you might claim that there almost are no main positive male characters in the movie, except for Bill and maybe Phil. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical error on the article
Under "plot" on the main article, the fourth line down starts "Dawn has fantasizes about marrying Tobey", which presumably is either meant to be "Dawn has fantasies about marrying Tobey" or "Dawn fantasizes about marrying Tobey". Since this article is semi-protected I am unable to fix this myself. Icanflynow (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mismatch Category
this movie is not a Rape and revenge film. Its a comedy and horror movie only. she was abused little bit at the time of child. it also not big. please watch the movie and categorized Sagotharan Jegadeeswaran (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep the grammar proper and concise to facilitate easy comprehension
I just broke up and repunctuated a run-on sentence (the one about her "non-toothed" sexual incident). Using good punctuation and grammar makes text easir to read and comprehend--and run-on sentences can be particularly difficult to intrepret at a glance. RobertGustafson (talk)

The film has a lot of bite to it!92.0.216.26 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep.79.77.209.77 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot issue
The page is semi-protected so I can't edit it myself, but in the plot summary section, it describes the scene in which Bill is being pinned by Brad's dog. The text says that "Bill confesses his love for Dawn" when it should say that "Brad confesses his love for Dawn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFD7:C210:BD4B:BB2D:9162:F7A4 (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Future of Teeth
This article does a great job at looking at the film. However, I do believe it would be better if it were mentioned that the writer of the film wants to turn the film into a TV series with Dawn. I also believe it should be pointed that this was marketed as a horror film, when it is much or of a dark comedy.MaxBaker1123 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018
I would like to insert page link for composer "Robert Miller" to link to his wikipedia page Robert_Miller_(composer) 96.250.56.108 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 02:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)