Talk:The Darkest Hour (film)

Poster
I replaced the international poster with the current US theatrical release poster. According to the MOS:FILM, this poster should be included. I haven't uploaded many posters, so if someone could take a look at the file to make sure it was done right, I'd appreciate it.
 * File: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Darkest_Hour_Theatrical_Poster.jpg

Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * hi, i checked the MOS:FILM and the original image but still i havn't seen anything to see why the US poster should replace the international one, can you explain which part of mos:film says the main image is to be changed? Pro66 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the inquiry. I just looked over the MOS:Film, and you are correct: it isn't actually listed there. I've seen a number of discussions on the WP:Film page about this issue, and it seems like the general consensus is to use an American poster for an American film. For example, here's one discussion about the issue. I think it's a fair topic to bring up to the film community, and something that could possibly be added to the MOS:Film. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --TravisBernard (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Budget?
Was it $30M or $40M? Clearly we can't say both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAvailableName (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo and the Los Angeles Times both say $30 million. — Mike  Allen   03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis
Don't think the synopsis should necessarily spoil what the aliens look like. --76.106.49.3 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Most entries on Wikipedia for movies typically feature 'spoilers', from plot to character development, considering the nature of encyclopedic entries. 222.154.232.126 (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reception
"The movie was only marginally successful. Despite grossing roughly $64,626,786 worldwide, while making over twice its budget, it's still only a lukewarm success compared to other disaster films like 2012 and Battle: Los Angeles."

This sentence in the reception section seems quite biased; The film more than doubled its budget so I'd say that's more than marginally successful. It's also slightly unfair to compare this film to 2012 and Battle: LA as both had more hype and larger budgets. --M4roho (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the United States, I just watched the movie on Amazon Prime Video, and I thought it was great. I heard that a movie must make 2 1/2 times its cost to break even, and this one comes close. I'm looking forward to a sequel. What's the deal with Rotten Tomatoes and 12%? Just dumb bugger eaters! Lord Milner (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

How are these enemies called?
Well Its not my only question My next question is how they came out, from where and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.212.112 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who gives a moist dump on what these things are called? I suggest you ask the creators of this abysmal waste of resources if you want to know.  While you're at it you can also ask them what they were smoking to create something so hopelessly braindead and for example why the cars are all empty and no one survived in one of them if a faraday cage makes people invisible for the creatures or why the actors receive a message on just of all an RF analyzer, which is not a radio, or why the engineer guy suddenly started speaking fluid English, or why the other guys can shield themselves with sparsely attached metal junk or why the hell the filmmakers failed to ask a elementary school physics teacher or at least some random nerd for some half-proper physical background to make the entire thing at least a tiny little bit more credible for people who made it past the 2nd grade, unlike the film makers.80.187.109.187 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)