Talk:The Happening (2008 film)/Archive 1

Citations for use

 * Citations for use. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shyamalan's slam-bang filming
 * 'The Happening' Blows Into Rittenhouse Square


 * It's all 'happening' at an area farm
 * Think local, be global

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * World’s End Is ‘Happening’ As Shyamalan Taps Wahlberg —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting edits
First of all, I agree that it's speculation to say why the studios actually rejected Shyamalan's initial draft. When I added the citation, I was under the impression that it was the reasoning and not an assumption made by the journalist. However, the TMZ.com citation is not reliable in the sense that it uses "insiders" for information. This kind of source is not verifiable enough to be accurate, and a more authoritative source should be used if it needs to be mentioned that 20th Century Fox had more interest than others the first time Shyamalan shopped around. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The additional information on 20th Century Fox I added has TWO sources and is written to state this may have been their reaction. Since you (or I) have no secondary information on the reliability of ANY source I see no basis for stating that one is more reliable than another. The propose of citing sources is so the reader can draw their own conclusion as to whether what is stated is valid. 69.72.2.72 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. You don't put any citation up and leave the reader to decide if the citations are valid.  Read WP:ATT: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." (emphasis mine).  I suggest that the TMZ.com citation be removed, and the dTheatre.com citation seems weak as well.  Do we need to get a third opinion? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Premise
I believe part of the description in the "Premise" section amounts to a plot spoiler, in particular the part referring to the mechanism behind the events. Does anybody else feel it should be altered or removed? —Dave Dubya - 21:00, 4th February 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I'm still ticked off that they removed spoiler warnings, though I can at least understand it for films, novels, etc. that have already been released. This is just irresponsible. Not to mention the fact that there's no way to check the source...
 * One of the edits appears to have claimed that the trailer showed this anyway, and yes, it does show the suicide part, but it doesn't make a connection to plants.--Romulus (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the part about only Americans being affected seems to have been added so that the pharse "(while the rest of the world celibrates!)" could be added. The part in parenthesis was deleted, but not the part about America, which I cannot find any basis for.
 * I did, however, find an IGN article that mentions Earth's flora and fauna... Read at your own risk, but I don't know that I'd trust TMZ... --Romulus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some Google Alerts for this film, so when I have the time, I'll see what more I can add about the premise and the production. I've checked, but there's no official synopsis yet.  When one arises, we can put that in the article instead of a mish-mash of outdated/potentially inaccurate details. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would have done it myself, but I wanted to check with at least one of the editors who was involved. Thanks again, --Romulus (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

complete similarity
I had the misfortune of looking up a youtube video and seeing that someone had leaked the end of the movie. However assuming it is true; chemical plants causing people to commit suicide and go insane, made by the government, one person figuring it out;.... this is almost the exact premise of the james herbert novel the fog. anyone else agree? someone should put it up when we get the full story --Steinfeld7 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers
Spoilers -- Don't be A-holes, people! That includes on the talk page, not just the main article. Yes, to answer the questions, spoilers that are needless should always be removed. Spoilers which are integral to information OTHER than the internal universe of the film can be left in iff they are surrounded by SPOILER tags. Gosh... I've had no sympathy for spoiling people ever since in high school I had Fight Club and The Sixth Sense ruined for me in the same week -- and the people didn't even have anything important to say, just casually bringing it up. JesseRafe (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who reads the talk page of a movie they haven't seen? Hell, who reads the article?? and if you havent been on the internet in the last 4 months; the part ive written has been leaked already. cool down if you want it removed Ill remove it --Steinfeld7 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the articles of movies I haven't seen; it's like seeing a trailer, or watching a "making of" special on TV. I think we should be able to avoid overt spoilers, because people viewing a page will not necessarily be the type that seek out leaked scripts. I know I'm not... In truth, I was on this talk page in the first place because I didn't like that it had spoilers... though I haven't looked at the page, or most of the other discussions, since then. But I don't think JesseRafe is so much angry at you as angry that they had the movie unintentionally spoiled. I still don't know why we got rid of spoiler warnings in the first place, since it's not like we have a limited amount of space, but I'm getting off topic.
 * I don't mean to incite any more tension, just pointing out that some people on the internet do still enjoy surprise when they see or read something.
 * --Romulus (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Romulus. Steinfeld7, it is very easy to say "Does anybody else think this movie is similar to _____ by ____?" Without mentioning the ending of the film. And this is wikipedia. People may have a great many of varied interests in this article thought they have not seen the movie. I for one began editing the article about filming locations in Philadelphia and making sure they were properly cited as I have an interest in that information apart from my interest in the film. My desire to not have the movie spoiled for me should not be forced to conflict with my desire to maintain this page reflecting some of the links on it. JesseRafe (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)