Talk:The Hurt Locker/Archive 1

Editing BADLY needed
Can someone who isn't a shill for this movie or a overhyper fan of the stars get this into decent shape? Opening graphs should be short, all the reviews need to be moved into a critical reaction section.

24.24.244.132 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Could still use a trim, though, to edit down the reactions. --Ckatz chat spy  08:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
Regarding the use of the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, I do not think that it is appropriate per WP:LEAD. First of all, the phrase is vague; what award, and what kind of award? It does not specify a difference between Best Picture at the Academy Awards and Best Summer Film at the Teen Choice Awards. WP:LEAD states, "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Also, "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them."  This is why the specific addendum was added to MOS:FILM; a lot of articles erroneously start out this way.  Same with the usage of taglines and their promotional language. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Year of Release
It's just one of the points of contention, but let's actually talk about it. Several users (including me) prefer 2008, noting that the film was released in a limited manner in 2008. Several sources ( use 2008 as the release date. Others, including Inurhead, prefer 2009, saying that the film was released in the US in 2009 and that the limited release doesn't count.

After some wandering around, I found WP:FilmRelease, which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FilmRelease specifically says that the release date should be based on when it was released in the country that produced the film (there is no hierarchy placed on that in that WP), and specifically states an "English-speaking country" (since this is the English version of Wikipedia, not the Italian version). This is an American film. It is the standard that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has adhered to for decades that a release date is considered to be the date the film is released in Los Angeles, California ("rule 2"). AMPAS is a higher authority than unpaid Wikipedia freelance contributors on this issue. So, for all lists of "2009 films" which Wikipedia readers will be likely searching and choosing Academy Award nominees from, it would be wrong and even misleading to exclude The Hurt Locker which is a front runner by many critics accounts in this 2009 season. It seems the intention of those who are trying to list the film as "2008" (based on limited film festival previews in 2008), are trying to do damage to the film's viewership and odds at receiving awards, which also could result in fiscal harm to the film. That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons. Inurhead (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Please stop with the spurious and unwarranted claims that anyone who objects to your opinion is trying to "harm" the film. While we are certainly not here to provide misleading information, we are also most definitely not here to support the film's press department, or as shills for the cast and crew. --Ckatz chat spy  19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you must agree, if you are not trying to mislead anyone, that The Hurt Locker should link to the release date page which is 2009, which shows its release listed THERE and not on 2008. It is not listed on the 2008 page because it was not released in the U.S. in 2008. So it should link to the proper page, which is 2009 and not 2008. The page shows U.S. Release dates, not Italian, not film festivals... Inurhead (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not addressing the release date, I'm addressing your apparent desire to control the content of the article, and your desire to weed out any material you do not agree with. This is compounded by your insistence on reverting valid edits while misleading edit summaries, your habit of making unjustified accusations against other editors, and your continued attempts to move this article from an encyclopedic treatment of the subject to that of a press release. I'd ask that you please reveal any connections you might have with the film or its cast and crew, because all of your edits to date demonstrate the distinct probability that you have a conflict of interest here. Having a COI does not preclude participation in the process, but it is important to ensure that your contributions are properly understood. --Ckatz chat spy  20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you finally came to the talk page for this, Inurhead. It's much easier to discuss this here than through reverts that eventually would have gotten people blocked.  Wikipedia only works when people talk about disagreements - back and forth revert wars just don't work (See WP:3RR).  That said ...


 * WP:FilmRelease does not say to use only the English release dates. That is ONE of the release dates that should be mentioned.  The list is which release dates should be mentioned, as some films can have a massive list of release dates.  There is no question that the film was first released in 2008.  That IS the release date of the film, even if that was a small release.  It was subsequently released in the US in 2009 after the film festivals.  Both of those dates should be mentioned in the info box.  For the article, the release date should be the initial release, but I think mentioned in the header that it was released in the US in 2009 makes perfect sense.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note I have removed the "reference" that was added to the "2009" in the lead sentence. First off, the link was not working; more importantly, after tracking down the rules in question (Academy Award Rule 2 and 3), they do not verify the year of release for The Hurt Locker. The rules only serve to outline the Academy's requirements for a film, one of which is that it must have a theatrical release in the Los Angeles area during a certain year in order to qualify for that year's awards. The rules specifically outline the conditions under which a film can have prior screenings outside of the United States. Thus, it can debut in Italy in 2008 and still qualify for the 2009 Oscars as long as its first US screening is in 2009. --Ckatz chat spy  02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant links, using the 2008 Oscars; the 2009 rules do not appear to be out yet: --Ckatz chat spy  02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 81st Academy Awards Rules for Distinguished Achievements in 2008 - Rule 2 (Eligibility)
 * 81st Academy Awards Rules for Distinguished Achievements in 2008 - Rule 3 (The Awards Year and Deadlines)

Re-open
I am reopening this discussion. The film is clearly a 2008 film. It's first theatrical release was in Italy in 2008. Please see Wikipedia_talk:FILM that I recently asked the project. Although its first theatrical release in America is 2009, the film is clearly a 2008 film. Also see earth (2007 film) as another example. BOVINEBOY 2008 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur with treating it as a 2008 film. Variety says in a 2008 article, "The indie pic, which was shot in Jordan and was produced by Shapiro and Nicolas Chartier's Voltage Pictures, goes out in Italy via Warner Bros. on Oct. 10."  This is the first public release.  I recommend clarifying in the article that while it was released first in Italy in 2008, it opened up to many more locations in 2009. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That seems very logical. So a sentence like "The film was released in the U.S. on June 26, 2009 in New York and Los Angeles" should be expanded to "The film was first released in the 2008 Venice Film Festival where it was followed by a theatrical release on October 10, 2008. It was then released to the United States on June 26, 2009 in New York and Los Angeles and more internationally throughtout 2009." Something like that? BOVINEBOY 2008 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the second thought, there is another way to go about it. 2009 is the year that The Hurt Locker truly made its splash across cinemas despite its premiere in Italy in 2008.  Judging from the critical acclaim so far, it will probably be on "best of 2009" lists like the ones at Metacritic.  What we could do in the lead section is to leave out the release year in the opening sentence and explain later in the section that it was released in Italy in 2008 and released in many more territories in 2009.  We can also keep the 2009 in film category.  Thoughts? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but does the release in Italy not count? I am confused at why we are making an exception here. It is clearly first released 2008. I may be wrong, that's just my opinion that we shouldn't ignore a release in an entire country. BOVINEBOY 2008 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes with guidelines, exceptions can be made. :) I think that there is an exception here because while it was released publicly in Italy in 2008, the film did not make itself truly known public until 2009.  I say this after assessing the current headlines about the film and not finding any English-language headlines about the film showing in Italy circa October 2008.  It seems to work best for Wikipedia to treat this as "popularly" a 2009 film, but we should recognize in the lead section its 2008 Italian release to offset the big 2009 debut. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that makes sense to me. BOVINEBOY 2008 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So I am restoring link to 2009 in film. Since you guys are in such a "good" mood. I am also restoring page to prior to edit war. Structure was fine. The plot material added in the interim was original and not sourced. It is therefore going and restored with consensus plot that has remained for months. Cast is already listed to the right and mentioned throughout article. Doesn't need another list of them in middle of article. Summit picked up the film at Toronto, so info that it was not picked up there or inferring that there was a problem is missleading. Bovineboy, you are new to contributing to this page, so please do not revert. Same to Ckatz's other buddies like Erik. Thanks. Inurhead (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, we ask you to practice civility and assume good faith of other edits. Since the film is a primary source, a basic description of its events is acceptable; see WP:FILMPLOT.  In addition, the infobox should have a shorter list of actors because "Cast" sections are staple sections in many articles.  For example, Jeremy Renner and only a few others need to be mentioned.  The rest of them can be detailed in the "Cast" section.  Lastly, yes, Summit picked it up at Toronto, so I will improve the wording to indicate this.  It wasn't structured to imply that it wasn't. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that the template Fy automtically links to 2009 . It is the same link, just smaller. BOVINEBOY 2008 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I ask you to practice the same civility. You have been solicited to take part in an edit war by some recent vandals to this page. They have not made any positive contributions to the page and for some reason are compelled to try to call this film a "2008" film, though they have given absolutely no logical reason for doing so. It doesn't help anybody when vandals maliciously attack a page or start edit wars. So because it is against the very same WP to go around like Ravensfire and Ckatz did and solicit their buddies to delete material on this page, I am reverting back to a slightly older consensus page. If you want to make positive, helpful contributions, then you are welcome, as others have been such as the person who listed all of the Arab-speaking actors. Great contribution! But if you are here merely to join in an edit war. Then "bye-bye." Inurhead (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified WT:FILM of issues of combativeness with content in the article for The Hurt Locker to see what changes they do or do not endorse. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FilmRelease clearly says "first release date", that is 2008: "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. should be used for the film's initial release. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example)." As such, I'm fixing it.

Its no doubt the film "made himself truly known by the public" by being showed at one of the most respected Cinematic Festivals of the world (Venice). After this event a great deal of articles in a respectable number of magazines, newspapers and other printmedia were published and subsequently read by millions of people. And all this happend 2008. What you referr here as "the public" is at most the U.S.-American market. --84.74.150.14 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of Minor edits
Inurhead, please do not check the Minor Edit box when making significant changes to the article. These,, , , were not minor edits. There's already enough puff in the article, please don't try to hide changes as minor when they clearly aren't. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Inurhead continues to mark all of his edits as minor. I'm not sure why, and he's offered no explanation for why he's doing this.  I normally have my watchlist set to ignore minor edits, but because of his actions, I cannot.  Aside from WQA, any suggestions from other users? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not a conducive situation, judging from messages on this talk page and from the edit summaries. I am also watching this article now (mainly because of the "[year] in film" skirmish), so what we can do is raise specific issues on this talk page and determine consensus with multiple editors, not just the one.  (We can notify WT:FILM for additional opinions.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Undo weight in negative reviews
Rottentomatoes has exactly two less than fresh reviews of this film and the reception section quotes both of them. 71.176.83.157 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede
Yes. But it has been declared "certified fresh" by RT. Which means that a SUPER MAJORITY OF MAJOR CRITICS have rated the film highly and only two have negatively reviewed. Again, same with Metacritic which has stamped it with the "universally acclaimed" status based on the gathering of scores of major critics. Thus I am restoring "universal acclaim", "award-winning" (because it has "won awards" and because it has been CALLED THAT by news sources) and "certified fresh" status to the article. And I seriously question why certain people on here want to strip the film of its acclaim. Don't you guys have something better to do, like a "birther" argument to attend? Inurhead (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it says "universal acclaim" on MetaCritic doesn't mean it is universally acclaimed; that's just a buzzword within MetaCritic's own rating heirarchy. Likewise, as many users have pointed out, even if these things were true it is still not appropriate to put them in the first sentence of the article; it comes across as non-neutral editing, peacock words, and, worst of all, advertising/promotion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found over 300 instances of the use of "universally acclaimed" in just one search on Wikipedia and almost 14,000 instances of the term "critically acclaimed". I will change to "critically" acclaimed, since that seems to be the preferred majority terminology for whatever reason (despite the fact that Metacritic uses "universal acclaim" as a documented achievement in the compiling of reviews of major critics). I'm going to change it in the article unless someone can explain why facts can't be added to an article. Acclaim is not something that is invented, nor "peacock" when it is real and documented as it is in this article. Inurhead (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Universal" means everyone. Unless you can prove that 100% of people in the world have "acclaimed" this film, it's not appropriate language for an encyclopedia&mdash;like I said above, it's just the name of one of the levels in MetaCritic's scale, not an actual description.
 * As for "critically-acclaimed", language such as "X film has received critical acclaim" is appropriate in the Reception section of the article, but is not necessary in the first sentence. The first sentence is not the place to advertise a film, it's only a place for defining the topic. The basic definition of the topic is not "universal film", it is just 'film'&mdash;that is how you define what the article is about, it's about a film.
 * I have removed your addition because you didn't wait for any comment before making it. Like I said already, do not edit war. You should not be editing this part of the article at all, you should be keeping to the talk page. If you make another controversial edit you will be blocked. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lede should be kept pretty neutral. And while I agree that this film is getting some exceptionally good reviews, the article shouldn't read like something from a film industry magazine.  Starting off the Reception section by saying that it's "critically acclaimed" fits with a more "encyclopedia" type feel, to me.  The film has gotten some extremely positive reviews, and I'm thinking that's got to be unusual.  There's a pretty good number of quotes from the reviews, but they're mostly about the film.  After a while, it starts to look like an advertisement, with a dozen versions of "Film is good".  I'm going to see if I can find any comments about the extremely high ratings this film is getting.  FT is well over 90% - that's got to be pretty rare!


 * Here's some of the other areas I think can be improved
 * Small plot section (the lede is almost as long as the plot!)
 * Revamp reception section to cut down on number of quotes
 * Look for additional material about impact of film
 * Reduce use of "industry" language not in quotes ("Bomb-squad actioner", "A-listers")
 * Lots of references - do we need that many?
 * Prune external links
 * I'll post any changes here before making them if I think there's any chance of disagreement. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my edits
Hello, I wanted to explain the edits I've made to the article so we can discuss them if necessary. Please let me know if there are any issues with my changes! — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve added more details for how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic present their scores because not all readers will be familiar with the websites. We cannot assume that they know how the websites work or that they will go to the websites to learn how they work, so we can take a few extra words to explain this right here, right now.
 * I separated "Overview" into "Cast" and "Production". This way, we can build up the "Cast" section to have real-world context about the actors and their roles (see Apt Pupil (film) as an example).  Also, "Production" is the typical name for a section covering the background of a film.
 * Lastly, I removed citations from the lead section because they are unnecessary for the most basic information about the film. Sometimes citations are used in lead sections to back controversial statements, but with this film, there is nothing that can't be already cited in the article body.
 * New change: I renamed "Box office" to "Theatrical run" so it could encompass details about the festival screenings, and I moved the critics' opinions below it in a "Critics" subsection. I also added detail about Venice and Toronto and the public release in Italy. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I merged "Premieres and festival screenings" under the "Release" section. I'm not sure if every festival needs to be mentioned; it's borderline indiscriminate.  It may be worth combining them in one sentence, saying, "The Hurt Locker screened at the Zurich Film Festival, the Mar del Plata Film Festival, the Fifth Dubai International Film Festival, etc..." and move on from there.  For what it's worth, it would help to clean up the citations so readers can see the works and the publishers for each footnote.  For example, you can see the Variety details. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank SoSaysChappy for expanding the "Plot" section. I also ask Inurhead to discuss the changes made by others beside him to the article in recent days. For example, the lead section does not require full-blown citation, and the "Plot" section needed expansion. We can discuss the structure of the film festivals, the theatrical run, and the critical reception, but they were combined under one section since it was related to how outsiders received it. — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough information to split "Release" and "Reception" into to separate sections. If we make "Festival screenings" and "Theatrical run" subsections of a Release section and then "Critical reception" and "Awards and honors" to Reception, navigation and reading of the article would be slightly easier. It would really be a minor change. BOVINEBOY 2008 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of these changes are positive. The new structure is not as good as the old one and is clearly just an attempt to join in an edit war, which you all were asked not to do. Because you were all asked not to and because most of you were solicited by others to come here and edit war, I'm reverting back to an older consensus version that also doesn't have the bad unsourced plot material and the non-consequential, non-improvements to the structure. Also the analytical "math" that was maliciously added to over-explain Metacritic is not suited to this page. It should just list Metacritic and RT's numbers with the links to both of those pages as it did before, where people can discover the "engineering" or "math" behind those numbers on their own by clicking on the links. It is not up to this page to explain or analyze Metacritic and RT's sampling procedures. I think you guys know that it slows down the readability of the article to over-explain things like that. It is also an attempt to obfuscate the subtext of the new "contributions" during this edit war, which are really just deletions in disguise (in an attempt to take the film down a peg). I'm restoring the "universally-acclaimed" and "certified fresh" status the cumulative reviews represent as other films have these listed on their pages. This was on the page previously, and is something which has been constantly reverted by several vandals here who don't want to accept the fact that this film has been "universally" well-received and "critically-acclaimed." No, Ckatz, that doesn't mean that every single person loved it (which is an impossibile high bar for ANY film, and one by Ckatz's analysis could never be achieved). There were two negative reviews out of hundreds. What it DOES mean is that MOST critics, and pretty much all major critics from all major newspapers, did like the film. It has a super-majority, in other words. If it were an election, it would be a landslide. Sorry, but that is factual. It should be included in the lead section of the article, per most movie lead sections that are critically-acclaimed films. It is also likely that this film will be nominated for Academy Awards (per many critics, including Roger Ebert). I'm going to restore Ebert's comments about that, since somehow, someone deleted them at some point... Inurhead (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop assuming bad faith of other editors' contributions. The article needed work, so I contributed to it.  If you want, we can discuss why the re-structuring is not as good.  Also, film articles have "Plot" sections that do not need to be sourced; please read WP:FILMPLOT.  The Featured Article on a fictional work, To Kill a Mockingbird, does not source it because all the information is already there in the infobox.  Same with this film.
 * Additionally, Steve first added the explanations for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and he's an editor in good standing that was trying to make an improvement. I agree with the need to explain it because the way Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic give their figures are not common knowledge.  It's more direct than using the slang the websites use such as "Certified Fresh".  I'm not sure why you're directing most of your message to Ckatz; he hasn't been involved recently.  I do agree about this film being very critically acclaimed, but we need to see if critics judge it as a "perfect" film or just "very good".  The lead section can definitely mention the critical acclaim, but we do not need to do it in the lead sentence.  You're bringing up a lot of specific issues, and I suggest that we pick one and discuss each one, knocking each one off a mental checklist. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll make a comment about the plot summary, since it is the only part of this article I've had a hand in editing... Per WP:FILMPLOT, the film itself is the source (as mentioned in the post above). The movie is now widely available for viewing and no longer needs just a brief overview depending on secondary sources. For anyone who has seen this movie, I would certainly welcome anyone to correct any errors I may have made. If there is anything in the plot summary that is potentially up for dispute, please point it out. If there is, I will remove and re-word it until I can find a source to verify any such material. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Inurhead|Inurhead was blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Regardless, I ask other editors to review the different arguments made about style and content. For example, Inurhead said that the very short plot summary was an agreement between him and Ckatz. Was this before the film was available to the public? Since the film is in public release, we do not have to be constrained by secondary sources. Like SoSaysChappy said, he reiterated the plot to the best of his memory and is willing to revise any mistakes he may have made. We may also need a new discussion about how to write about how the film was critically acclaimed to ensure that we have due weight (like whether or not any negative reviews should be included). It's one of those days, so I'm going to take a break from this article and let others discuss how the article can be improved. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of reviews have been positive. A very small minority of reviews on RT and MC indicate a negative response. Now...per WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". I'm not for leaving out a few sentences describing why it got a rare negative review here or there; including such info would help the reader understand why these critics' opinions differed so much from the norm. It's about differing opinions on a film, not as minimally divisive as, say, the "flat earth" theory that WP:UNDUE likes to use as an example...so go ahead and include a brief description of the negative reviews. But, like I said, a few sentences only. The content of the critical reception section should be somewhat proportional the 90-some-odd percentage of praise the film has received, and the tiny bit of negative/mixed criticism. I'm not trying to be a biased or a "shill"...just simply reflecting the facts. Of course, any further discussion may change my mind. In defense of the current plot summary, there's really nothing I can say that hasn't been said already. It adheres to WP:FILMPLOT (as far as I can tell), so I don't see why it's necessary to revert it back to the short version (unless its stated in the above-mentioned agreement, which I can't find on this talk page or elsewhere). As for the cast listing in the infobox... I agree with Erik, it needs to be shortened. Of course, I would include the three main protags (Renner, Mackie and Geraghty). Here's where I'm on the fence... whether or not to include Fiennes, Pearce, and Morse. They are three high-profile actors who each have cameo roles in the film. Should they stay or go? I would leave out Lilly, Camargo, and Sayegh, but include them in the cast section (they each play small but important roles in the movie, and while Sayegh isn't billed very high, his character is described in the plot summary). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should be about a more than just the plot. Overly long and thorough plot summaries are also hard to read. The plot needs to be concise. I'm restoring an older, more concise plot with references that doesn't contain original writing and which isn't overly long and which doesn't include dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns such as the one that is posted now. Inurhead (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have to say that I am really glad that this article is finally getting some heavy-duty attention from established contributors, because it has been a thorn in my side for over a year now. I think a perfunctory review of Inurhead's contribution history will immediately illustrate that he appears to be a single-purpose editor who is here only to promote the film, and to weed out any negative comments that others add. I first became aware of his edits when he added an excessive list of non-conforming external links to the "American Gothic" article, in the process discovering that he was focusing heavily on adding non-encyclopedic and overly promotional text to this article and also to related articles such as Jeremy Renner (i.e. this contribution). His history also shows a pattern of aggressive edit summaries and comments, a refusal to acknowledge the concerns expressed by other editors, a habit of deleting welcomes and warnings alike form his talk page, and a tendency to hide major revisions and reverts as "minor" edits. (Please take any claims by Inurhead regarding supposed sock- and meat-puppets with a grain of salt, especially if you are one of the supposed puppets, and likewise for any supposed "agreements" regarding content.) From my perspective, this article has been one of those ones that sticks in your watchlist because of a repeated and continuing pattern of problematic edits from an SPA. I've been trying to trim out the excessive promotional material as it has been added over the past year, but tthe contributions from the film project regulars are sorely needed so that this article can finally be allowed to develop properly. --Ckatz chat spy  21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So Ckatz is claiming that he is wikistalking me from one article to the next? Is that what is going on here? I knew you had no formal interest in contributing to this article. Now you have proved it. I suggest, Ckatz, that you please remove the above libelous comments as they are not relevant to this article. Please stop harassing me. Harassment and wikistalking of any contributor is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that has the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, for the purpose of intimidating or isolating the primary target. Wikipedia is having a growth problem retaining newer contributors for just this reason. It must stop or Wikipedia will die a slow death as people leave it in droves. This is supposed to be a collaboration not an oligarchy of self-empowered administrators and their buddies.


 * If you notice Ckatz's pattern here, he has constantly reverted many if not most of this contributor's additions without any regard to their value, he has stealthy and agressively solicited help from others to do it. He admits he followed me from one page to the next. Do you all really want people like this destroying Wikipedia with reverts and making it so unpleasant and discouraging newer contributors from participating? Seriously. People are not going to contribute if they know their are antagonists like this out there who are reverting the majority of their contributions. What will be the point of adding something, if it is just deleted the next day?


 * Administrators have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. All of these abilities must be used in accordance with policy and must never be used to "win" a content dispute. Ckatz, your posts here and threats to me are inappropriate, especially for someone with administrative powers. Again, I ask that you remove the above comment and that you stop harassing me. Inurhead (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/Inurhead says it far more eloquently then I can. Cheers. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

James's rank?
Anyone know a good site that can verify James's exact rank? He's called everything from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant to Sergeant First Class (E5 thru E7) on pages all over the internet. From my memory, he's simply called "Sergeant" in the film, but I'm not sure whether or not the Army might still refer to an E6 or E7 simply as "Sergeant". If there are conflicting sources that verify conflicting ranks of the character, would it be best to just go by how many chevrons appear on the insignia of his uniform (in which case, we would need multiple confirmations from several reliable viewers/editors)? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * His insignia throughout the film consistently corroborates Sergeant First Class (E-7), as the article claims. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This keeps getting changed. In the closing credits, and on the movie's official website, he's credited as "Staff Sergeant." But as many have pointed out, his insignia on his uniform would indicate Sergeant First Class. Going along with WP:V, I would say to list him as "Staff Sergeant" and cite the official website. Either way, we need to resolve this (and maybe leave a hidden message next to instances where his rank is mentioned in the article), or else users will continue to see a reason to make flipflop edits. -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would put his rank as Staff Sergeant, sourced to the official site, then add that the insignia in the movie is that of a Sergeant First Class. If there's a good site covering discrepencies in a movie and has this one, that would be a good cite.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The goofs section on IMDB lists this as a good, so a quick mention with a cite is easily doable.  Normally I'd say no reason to mention it, but there's enough people making the change that I feel it's warranted.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added hidden comments in the Cast and Plot sections, to not change the rank and see the talk page. It should cut down some of the changes... <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Small revamp of the Reception section
Something that's always kinda bugged me about the article is the reception/review section. It reads more like an ad for the movie than anything else. Some of the quotes just say the same thing, without really adding anything new. Both of the negative reviews also seem to comment on the same thing - a lack of focus in certain places, causing the movie to drag. (Odd - personally I didn't see that when I saw the movie, but to each their own!). So, how do folks think about this revision?


 * The Hurt Locker has received widespread acclaim from critics. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 98% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 130, with an average score of 8.4 out of 10. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 94 based on 33 reviews. Several reviewers have described it as the best film yet made about the Iraq war.


 * Reviewing the film for TIME magazine at Venice, film critic Richard Corliss said, "The Hurt Locker is a near-perfect movie about men in war, men at work. Through sturdy imagery and violent action, it says that even Hell needs heroes." Toronto Star critic Peter Howell said, "Just when you think the battle of Iraq war dramas has been fought and lost, along comes one that demands to be seen... If you can sit through The Hurt Locker without your heart nearly pounding through your chest, you must be made of granite." Entertainment Weekly's film critic Lisa Schwarzbaum gave the film the rare "A" rating, calling it, "an intense, action-driven war pic, a muscular, efficient standout that simultaneously conveys the feeling of combat from within as well as what it looks like on the ground. This ain't no war videogame."


 * The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott wrote of the film, "The Hurt Locker is the best nondocumentary American feature made yet about the war in Iraq... You may emerge from “The Hurt Locker” shaken, exhilarated and drained, but you will also be thinking." Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal called it, "A first-rate action thriller, a vivid evocation of urban warfare in Iraq, a penetrating study of heroism and a showcase for austere technique, terse writing and a trio of brilliant performances." Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times gave it four stars stating, "The Hurt Locker represents a return to strong, exciting narrative. Here is a film about a bomb disposal expert that depends on character, dialogue and situation to develop almost unbearable suspense... Staff Sgt. James is played by Jeremy Renner, who immediately goes on the short list for an Oscar nomination. His performance is not built on complex speeches but on a visceral projection of who this man is and what he feels."


 * Some of the few critical comments on the film have been about a lack of focus in some parts of the movie. Variety ' s Derek Elley comments "war may be hell, but watching war movies can also be hell, especially when they don't get to the point." Kyle Smith of the New York Post said "Despite its pumped-up admiration for our troops and some scenes that spurt adrenaline like a fire hose, this sort-of-thriller about a bomb squad working in 2004 is stretched both timewise and for plausibility."

Combined the two negative reviews into a single paragraph, and highlight that they seem to be talking about the same thing. I also pulled out the quote from the LA Times and the second Variety reviewer. Thoughts? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We can go further than this. It is easy to say that critics across the board have loved the film, and a lot of these quotes tend to repeat this acclaim in different forms.  When I write "Reception" sections, I try to write why critics loved the film.  For example, Time's Richard Corliss is quoted pretty broadly, though "sturdy imagery" is a good specific detail.  I looked at his review, and here's a better specific quote about why the film works for him: "He's ordinary, pudgy-faced, quiet, and at first seems to lack the screen charisma to carry a film. That supposition vanishes in a few minutes, as Renner slowly reveals the strength, confidence and unpredictability of a young Russell Crowe. The merging of actor and character is one of the big things to love about this movie."  If we could work that in instead, that would have more weight, in my opinion.  Repeat for the other reviewers. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I noticed in earlier revisions that many reviews were removed because one editor apparently disliked the view point of the critic. Have those since been restored or reevaluated from a more neutral stance to see if they should be restored? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which review was it? I may tackle the reception section next to reflect what critics specifically liked about the film, if there is no issue with that approach. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The one from the New York Post which was removed with a note of "Omit neg POST review which is a sexist attack on film's director, quote is not complete anyway, film is universally acclaimed and Elley review already reps the small % neg reviews". And Film Threat's review which was apparently removed as a "lesser known critic" Those were the two I could find in all the mess happening from the first week in August. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Inurhead about the reviews based on what I've read about this film. It's been extremely critically acclaimed, so reading the policy on undue weight ("...generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"), we should have one or no negative review.  In a way, this is why I prefer to quote parts of reviews that show why a critic liked it, as opposed to "great film", "amazing film", etc. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree on quoting their comments on why the liked it. For excluding all negative reviews, though, I'm not sure...per undue, I think having a section of negative reviews would certainly be inappropriate, but I'm also concerned that there may be other reviews that had negative remarks that have been left out and should be considered. I also think that not mentioning them at all, gives a false impression that it absolutely no one disliked the film, when it is clear that at least some critics did. While Film Threat is a smaller review (though RT does use it in its rotten calculations), the New York Post review seems to have at least some value and Variety also apparently gave it a primarily negative review. Several other reviewers gave it mostly positive reviews, but did have aspects they disliked as well (Salon.com, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Chicago Tribune, etc). I just want to make sure that neutrality is reinstated and that these views are not overly minimized (while also not being overly emphasized). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should mention the reviews more fully... I assume you looked at Metacritic? We can revise such samples to be fuller and to reflect in passing why it wasn't quite a perfect film for some critics.  I think for a wholly negative review, we should just cite Variety and look into extrapolating some of the under-100 reviews to say something like, "While John Doe thought that the film was somewhat long, he was impressed by its production value and the actors' performances."  Statements to that effect. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Your suggestion to add more content from the one sole negative review is inappropriate and biased. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia considers a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors, especially those who on the talk page are clearly representing an extreme minority. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia AT ALL. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. The super-majority view on this film, by 98% of critics is highly positive. Giving undue weight to one or two contrarian negative reviews does not reflect the facts and is an attempt to negatively influence perception and skew this article in a direction other than what exists factually-speaking.


 * This film has been positively reviewed by 98% of critics, making that 2% of dissenters the extreme minority. Wikipedia policy doesn't give priority to presenting the views of people who dissent just based on being contrary (i.e., "the world is flat argument") and they should not be included and given the same weight as the super majority sourced references. Yet they are represented on this page with undue weight and recent attempts have been to summarize those minority POV views with scoping statements that are not factual and lack references. I am against it, as I think most Wikipedia film contributors would be, since it has the potential to damage and unravel not just this article, but every other film article. If your goals as editors on Wikipedia is to stick to the facts, stop discussing adding original research on this talk page and stop trying to overinflate the minority POV. It is biased and what you are doing is not as obfuscated as you think. Inurhead (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

← I reworked the reception section per my proposal. Previously, the inclusion of positive reviews by critics sounded too much like soundbites, so I attempted to flesh them out to be more specific as to why critics liked the film. I also removed the negative New York Post review and fleshed out the negative Variety review, which I believe should be the only negative one to avoid undue weight. I also have the PDF for Film Comment, which may have more to say about the film in a different way... I don't want the section to sound like a broken record when it comes to the characters and the intensity. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Festival screenings
Since the article has been a battleground lately, I will explain my newest edits. I compressed the mention of The Hurt Locker receiving the SIGNIS award because the award was not very significant in the press (hence why I deferred to the official website). We can save specific comments on the film for the critics' section. Also, the citation for the other three awards at Venice did not mention them. I assume the citation is an expired one since there are mentions of these other awards elsewhere, but I'm having trouble finding a good RS to use. Help, anyone?

Also, I'm trying to compress mention of the film festivals to mention them one by one. The big ones were Venice and Toronto, really... the other ones, with the exception of Dallas, don't seem important. I didn't want to remove the festivals in their entirety, though... do people think it's worth identifying each one or having a collective statement, such as, "The Hurt Locker screened at several festivals in 2008 and 2009 before its public release"? — Erik (talk • contrib) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not need the total restructuring that you are doing to it. I find your restructuring during the "edit war" to be malicious. Please stop and go work on some other film article. I believe you said that you haven't even seen this film. Again, I rest my case. I am restoring the article to prior to the edit war. Inurhead (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My goal is to better string together the film festival mentions more concisely and to flesh out the citations for them. I'm not clear why this is a problem? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reverting has been undone and Inurhead has been reblocked for 72 hours. As for the issue at hands, I agree that the festival screenings needs some compression as it was suffering some overcoverage. Other than major film festivals, I think a general collective statement would be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the idea of calling out the major festivals. There's a table for awards, etc, so mentioning that it was screen in festivals world-wide (or list the major countries), including X, Y and Z seems about right.  If the film wins a significant award, it should be in the table.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think festival awards should be mentioned twice? For example, the awards from Venice are mentioned both in the "Festival screenings" section and the awards table. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're talking to a programmer, so I hate seeing anything repeated! That said, if it's something really notable (prestigious award from a major festival), I think it should be mentioned with the festival and listed in the table.  We'd do the same if it won a major film award.  Otherwise, mentioning that it won awards at the festivals (or won awards at a specific, major festival to draw notice to it) is, I think, enough.  We don't need to list "Best Use of Paperclips" half a dozen times after all! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See Also section
I like the addition of the see also section. I don't think that the link to Cinema of the United States should be included. For me, a see also section should contain links that have similar correlations. The Hurt Locker of course is an American film, but I don't this someone who is going to the Cinema article will want to read this article for more or similar information. I really don't want to remove it without consensus seeing the warring that has been going on, but I would live if the link remains. BOVINEBOY 2008 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My thinking for the "See also" section is that having words like "1999" and "American" linked in the lead sentence does not make it clear to readers that they link to 1999 in film and Cinema of the United States, respectively, per WP:EGG. That's why I de-linked them there and placed them in the "See also" section.  This way, the links can be shown in their fullest.  I hate to do without them anywhere since I'd like to ensure that readers are not in the dark about accessing these broader pages. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense and I agree with the links to 2009 in film and List of American films of 2000. I just always see a "See also" section as a list to similar or directly-related articles. Cinema of the United States is such a broad article in subject that it doesn't seem to directly have an impact on this film. It would make sense if this film made a big change in American cinema or started a new thing, but it hasn't. It's a good article, but I don't think readers are going to read more about it from this article. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 01:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it's a bit broader... do you think in practice there should ever be a Cinema of entry in the "See also" section of an individual film's article?  WP:SEEALSO says, "These [links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."  Again, it says that choosing links are "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense".  I just wonder if anyone would come across "Cinema of the United States" if it wasn't linked in the films' articles, whether in the lead sentence or a "See also" section. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh! Okay, that really makes sense. It should be linked somewhere and I don't see a better way to put it. It would be really clunky to say something like "...made under American cinema ". I can't see a better place for it. I still stand by it being linked in the "Country" parameter of the infobox, but it needs to be formatted differently. Anyway, that's a different discussion, for now it seems the "See also" section is the best place for it. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 02:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree about revising the field's title to something other than "Country" because I think the trend is to link to national cinema articles, not country articles. Like you, though, I can't think of a good (and short) alternative title for the field.  If we could figure that out, we wouldn't have to worry as much about linking in the lead sentence!  If you ever have any ideas, start discussion at Template talk:Infobox film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 02:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it Simple
I feel that the KISS (keep it simple) principle of Wikipedia is being forgotten here in the most recent set of agressive changes and restructuring of this article, with preference being given to an extreme minority POV which is that of the TALK page contributors and not that of sourced groups, such as critics.

It is important also to remember that WP:CREEP tactics seem to be coming into effect here. Instruction creep occurs when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable. It seems that this whole talk page has become one long creep. Several contributors have pitched changes which reinforce an extreme minority POV, have insisted on using instruction creep, making new "rules" about film page contributions as well as release dates and attempting to give extremely long, detailed instructions for their minority POV, meant to antagonize this contributor in particular. Instruction creep begins when a user thinks "This page would be better if everyone were supposed to do this" or "it would be easier if this were made clear for everyone" and adds more requirements. Scroll up to see these arguments and for examples.

The lead in for the article has become a tedious argument about the release date of the film (in violation of bringing the talk page discussion into the article itself, I might add). That is not the most important information to promote within the first paragraph, certainly, and most people don't care about it. They want to know if it is a film out there right now, which it is. A 2009 film.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia considers a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors, especially those who on the talk page are clearly representing an extreme minority. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.

This film has been positively reviewed by 98% of critics, making that 2% of dissenters the extreme minority. Wikipedia policy doesn't given priority to presenting the views of people who dissent just based on being contrary (the world is flat argument) and they should not be included and given the same weight as the super majority sourced references. Yet they are represented on this page with undue weight and recent attempts have been to summarize those minority POV views with scoping statements that are not factual and lack references. Furthermore, my attempts at summarizing these 98% positive reviews or adding positive quotes from major critics such as Roger Ebert in the LEAD section have been thwarted. If you look at any other film page that has had this type of reviews, that is considered a normal part of the lead in. It is encyclopedic to include it, if a film has wide acclaim. I would like to restore that as well as Ebert's quote in the lead section.

I was also restructuring the article per WP:STRUCTURE to not allow this extreme minority POV to present a tedious complete scene-by-scene breakdown of the movie plot (in violation of WP:PLOT) to have a position so high up in the article. I replaced the wordy plot with a synopsis and moved the entire unsourced "plot" down to a position further down in the article for those who seek that detailed type of unsourced information (but still leaving it there to avoid an edit conflict, even though I strongly believe that it is wordy, inappropriate and not sourced). I retitled it appropriate "Scene-by-Scene Breakdown". That is accurate. It is unsourced, original material and Wikipedia is not all about "plot" and scene-by-scene breakdowns are discouraged in WP:PLOT anyway.

I would like to restore my minor restructure additions which Ckatz reverted without any reason today. Again, my restructure left in tact the "contributions" of the minority-majority represented here on the TALK page, but put them in a more rational order. Some people read Wikipedia from handheld devices. They should not have to scroll through so much wordiness, confusing new gibberish added to the LEAD about release dates, nonsense and original writing that is not sourced, just so that they can get to the proper sourced material. Inurhead (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit was hardly "minor" in nature, as pointed out by others, nor was it "reverted without any reason". (Per my comment, "edit summary does not reflect actual nature of edit".) Beyond that, I think you need to accept that virtually all of your edits on Wikipedia, especially in the past half-year or so, clearly appear to be solely for the purpose of "improving" coverage of this film from the perspective of someone connected to the production. You have consistently removed any text that you feel portrays the film in a negative light, while rewriting text repeatedly in a manner best suited to a press release. Editors who disagree with you have been accused of bias and a desire to "harm" the film and/or its chances at awards. This is not a productive way to participate in the project. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your accusations are false. I have made positive contributions to this film page and many others. You on the other hand, have only participated to engage in edit wars and to delete my contributions. I have negotiated for a neutral, source-generated positive article. I am a contributor and you are a deleter, in what seems like the classic Wikipedia sense. The fact is that my contributions have been elaborately sourced and detailed due to the heavy revert factor you have put on this article. They are factual. Your deletes are not. Other people's "contributions" have not been so careful either. It is against Wikipedia rules to stalk contributors and to try to isolate them and harass them, to repeatedly revert their contributions, and to try to solicit others to portray a fake "majority". Maybe you are looking for attention. If that's the case, then this is the wrong way to go about getting it. Again and for the last time, I ask you to stop. It is not helpful. Inurhead (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Inurhead, discuss the article only, not other users, on this talk page, please. Ckatz, try not to bait him.  Cheers, everyone.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary does not need citations
The plot summary does not need citations; the film serves as a primary source where editors can provide a basic description of what takes place in the film. It is not original research unless there are statements that are interpretative by nature, like assuming characters' emotions and motives. These statements should be amended so the summary is a simple, straightforward presentation that everyone can agree with. WP:FILMPLOT explains all this and more; many Good and Featured Articles about films do not use inline citations for the plot summaries, and this one does not need to, either. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussing changes
A couple of points about the edits made so far: Just wanted to lay out these explanations. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We only link to producers in the "producer" field -- not executive producers, co-producers, and so forth. If we did this for every film, then there would be far too many.  If any executive producers or co-producers play a big role, their involvements can be detailed in the article.
 * We only link to a name once in the infobox, in the first instance. Sometimes there are filmmakers who direct, produce, and star... it's overlinking to do it more than once in such a small area.
 * Critical opinions should be reserved for the proper section, so we don't need to bring in a critic's opinion in the "Cinematography" section -- keep it technical.
 * The review by Richard Corliss was restored back to the shorter one... why? The expanded one explores his opinion more deeply and still has the "Hell needs heroes" sentence.
 * We should make an effort to tie together some paragraphs. We can't have one paragraph for each critic, especially one-sentence paragraphs like the WSJ review.  We should aim for transitions between related points, such as Ebert and Corliss both talking about Renner's performance.
 * Lastly, we should keep the plot summary shortened. Not every scene can be mentioned, but we should give a good overview.  I saw the film last night, and I think that the range can be closer to 400 words than 700 words.  If we can cut it down this far, we may not need the "Premise" section to preempt it.


 * Your rules would give vanity credits precedent over the real producers. Clearly, Tony Mark is the producer of the film, as he is quoted in the "New Mexican" article. He is also listed as UPM in the credits. It is unclear what those others you allowed to remain, did on the picture. One is the director, who probably, I'm guessing "directed" the picture. One is the writer, who I'm guessing... it's a long shot... but he probably "wrote" the screenplay. I don't know what the other two did, but it seems one is the sales agent, maybe financer and the other? Who knows. Clint Eastwood often remarks that it makes him furious when producers who did little or nothing on a picture are given credits. BTW... I agree with shortening the plot summary. I just filled in some new details. If you can keep those details and still trim. Feel free. I also have a note, about the Film Info box which Bovineboy keeps reverting. Actually you are only supposed to list one release date in that box, not festival release dates. In English Wikipedia preference is given to the first English speaking country the film is released in, with emphasis on country of origin. I think having the release dates tediously listed three or four times in the article is a waste of space. Can we just list them all under release section, as I have tried to do in the past? For all points and purposes, this is a 2009 film. It is in the "See also" section as such. Inurhead (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah and... as for the cinematography critic quote, I moved it up from your placement in the critical reception, since that was largely just a review of the cinematography/crafts. I thought it would be more streamlined to put it into your new cinematography section. As for Corliss, I went back to the more concise quotes to streamline. The new stuff didn't really sum up his feelings on the film appropriately. As for WSJ, it seems that it should be included so that a balance is achieved between sources that are considered to be from different political leanings than say, the NY Times. It shows balance and agreement across multiple platforms and with news sources that often times are in stark disagreement. Inurhead (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there was a discussion about release dates. I don't doubt anymore that this is a 2009 film and am okay with that. But giving preference to English-speaking countries does not support a neutral point-of-view. The was a discussion that has kind of died away, but if you look at WP:FILMRELEASE as it stands, several release dates are notable. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes there was a discussion about release dates that basically went against Wikipedia policy on such. Plus the so-called "discussion" didn't include my stance or the fact that this is English Wikipedia and that decisions should be based on that, per policy on film release dates. I didn't invent that policy. That's the way it is. You also went around removing films from the 2009 in film categories elsewhere, irritating some other contributors who complained on Erik's talk page.


 * I'm also saying now, this present moment, that the release dates are listed too many times on the page, it looks cluttered as well. PLUS, when all those release dates were addded, including festivals to the Film Info box, it now went against policy for that box. Why are you so insistent upon adding all of this nonsense that nobody cares about. What does it matter that it had a foreign pre-release in one country before opening in the U.S. I don't really see why that is so important that it has to be listed three or four times and in first order. It doesn't disqualify it from any awards consideration, if that is your goal. If you have another goal with it, I'd love to hear it. Because it doesn't make any sense to me what you are trying to achieve with giving it so much weight. Inurhead (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't stick around and respond to this now, but Inurhead, please try to have a collaborative tone when discussing contributions. Being impolite does not earn you any favors.  I'll be back later. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess we were writing this at the same time...(and I'm not being impolite at all, just impressing my opinion and the facts). How is that "impolite"? One last thing, I was going to say before you got into "lecture mode" is that I didn't really appreciate being reverted and the whole article being restructured during an edit war and would appreciate a little more collaboration the next round. But I do have to say one thing good came out of the restructuring, I do like the more condensed film festival listings (although I haven't had a chance to back-check it for accuracy). Since it is no longer making the festival circuit and is in domestic theatrical release, this section is much better shorter. Inurhead (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Why are you so insistent upon adding all of this nonsense that nobody cares about." That's not polite... believe me, civility can go a long way.  We need to remember that we're all here to build a better encyclopedia.  We have different ideas to accomplish that, and if we can respect one another and present logical arguments, we can figure out a solution and move on to other tasks. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For more about this edit, read this entry, which is also a response to what transpired here and here. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the unnecessary expansion; was not sure why so much detail was added. A question to ask, though... do you think a "Premise" section is warranted as an overview, either in a section above the "Plot" section or in the lead section? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd incorporate into the lead, if need be. If we're going to use this, it needs to be re-written, as it's pretty much copied directly from the sources. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Release Date
Okay, so per BovineBoy's request I went back to WP:FILMRELEASE, just so that we are all reading it the SAME, I'm going to list it here. Again, it backs up everything that I've been saying all along, including my new request to limit the film info box release date to the date of release in the English-speaking country of origin.

"The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following":


 * The film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release should be used.


 * Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia).


 * Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film.

Do not include the following in infoboxes. If desirable, they can instead be included in a separate section in the main body of the article (example):


 * Release dates for every country in the world (i.e. Italy)


 * Screenings at film festivals (except for the film's very first screening; see above) as these are only seen by a small number of people

I think we need to remove Italy from the release dates column on the film info box and put all this technical release info into the "release" section of the article. Or just eliminate it, as it is already mentioned as having screened and the date during the Venice Film Festival in the festival section. Inurhead (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I definietly agree the Italy release should be removed and I see you have done that already. My opinions have changed since I added that the first time. But I still stand by the inclusion of the VFF release date. The first point says to include the films earliest release in the infobox, including film festivals. Agreed that dates shouldn't clutter the infobox, but as of now there are only two. That isn't clutter. You will also notice the part you left out, (I added back in italics).  BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Producer credits
Executive producers and co-producers do not normally belong in the "Produced by" field of the infobox. This is the best practice for including names in the field because the roles of executive producers and co-producers are different from producers. It also reduces glut in the infobox. Why should we not trim the names? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot...again
Re: this edit (just read around the talk page for the backstory). What will follow is this version of the plot summary as of this entry, my comments in bold, explaining my revisions which appear in italics. It might help to read WP:FILMPLOT to understand them better. Just saying. Again.

The Hurt Locker opens with a quote: "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug". The quote comes from the 2002 best-selling book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, by New York Times war correspondent and journalist, Chris Hedges.[6][7]
 * Fine, although I think the bit about the awards the book got might be better suited in another section.

The film opens with POV video feed from a military bomb-disarming robot or "bot" as it heads towards a suspicious pile of rubble. U.S. Army and Iraqi police evacuate a neighborhood. Standing safely far away from the IED, at the controls of the bot are a U.S. Army EOD "bomb team" comprised of Sergeant Sanborn, Specialist Eldridge, and team leader, Sergeant Thompson. The bot zeroes in on an Improvised Explosive Device, (IED) buried in the refuse pile. The bot malfunctions and the team leader is suited up in a protective bomb suit. He retrieves the C4 explosive from the bot and lays the explosives down on the IED. As Thompson walks away from the IED, Specialist Eldridge notices a suspicious man in a butcher shop with a cell phone. Suddenly, the IED explodes in poetic slow motion, sending dust and rubble everywhere, and taking with it, the team leader.

At the military base camp barracks, a shell-shocked Sergeant Sanborn meets Thompson's new replacement, Sergeant James. The two immediately get into a heated discussion as James recklessly removes the protective plywood from the barrack's windows, in order to get some sun. Later at the military base morgue, Sanborn lays Sergeant Thompson's dog tags into his personal effects.
 * What has been established here? The film focuses on three key people of an EOD team in the Army. It explains their job, and how they do it (which includes the use of a bombsuit and robot). We know the leader is killed when a mission fails, and he is soon replaced by a new protagonist. OK...we remove the excessive detail about the bot, under what an IED is buried, Thompson placing C4 on the IED, and the man in the butcher shop. None of this prevents the reader from realizing that Thompson was killed when an IED goes off. We remove the unnecessary details about the explosion (and its POV description of being "poetic"), and the sentence about the dogtags. In addition to introducing the characters, ee add when this happened and where this takes place, and we now have a proper exposition: In 2004, during the early stages of the post-invasion period in Iraq, Sergeant First Class William James becomes the new team leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit with the U.S. Army's Bravo Company, replacing Staff Sergeant Thompson, who was killed by a remote-detonated improvised explosive device (IED) in Baghdad. He joins Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge, whose jobs are to communicate with their team leader via radio inside his bombsuit, and provide him with rifle cover while he examines an IED.

The new team's first mission finds Sgt. James's approaching a suspected IED without first sending in a bomb disposal robot and then not communicating with his team. During this mission, James has a standoff with a taxi driver who speeds through a military checkpoint and James also dismantles a spider web of bombs, confronting its maker who appears in an alley. This selfish unilateralism causes Sanborn and Eldridge to consider James to be "reckless." Back at Camp Victory, James befriends "Beckham", a young Iraqi boy who works for a local merchant selling DVDs on the base. Eldridge discusses his obsession with death with the base psychiatrist, Colonel Cambridge. Eldridge reveals that he wishes he could have shot the man at the butcher shop. Ensuing missions see James attempting to disarm a bombs at the United Nations building in Baghdad, among others. The EOD team destroys caches of found IED materials at a desert disposal range. James forgets his gloves downrange, and Sanborn jokes to Eldridge that it would be so easy to push the detonator while he's down range; after all, "accidents happen." The team then encounters a British private military company stranded in the desert with a flat tire. When one of the contractor's is killed by a sniper bullet, the team joins in a desert firefight.
 * We leave in the portion about James refusing to send in the robot, which causes his team members to think of him as "reckless". Now we've established the teams' use of a robot, and James's recklessness, two important points that were lost in the trim of the first paragraphs. We have to remove info not crucial to the reader having an basic understanding of what happends, for reasons of constraints per word limit guidelines on WP:FILMPLOT (that's editing for ya...it comes with the territory). The descriptions about the mystery men in the taxi and in the alley must go, along with the subplot (s-u-b-p-l-o-t!) involving Eldridge's visits with the doctor. We also remove the bit about the gloves and flat tire. Too. Much. Excessive. Detail. Now we have this: James's insistence on approaching a suspected IED without first sending in a bomb disposal robot during their first mission together lead Sanborn and Eldridge to consider him "reckless". Back at Camp Victory, James befriends Beckham, a young Iraqi boy who works for a local merchant operating at the base. Ensuing missions see James successfully disarming a bomb at the United Nations building in Baghdad, the team encountering a British private military company with whom they join in a firefight with insurgent snipers...

Back at the base that night, the men do some bonding with a bottle of whisky. Sanborn and James get into a fight, when a drunken James rides him like a perverted rodeo cowboy on a bucking bronco. Furious at this humiliation, Sanborn threatens James with a pocketknife to the throat.

The next mission finds the psychiatrist Cambridge tagging along to check up on Eldridge's mental health. The EOD team heads for an abandoned warehouse that has been recently used by insurgents to make IEDs. Inside, they find a body bomb that James expects is "Beckham." Another IED explodes outside the warehouse, killing a member of the EOD team.
 * More excessive detail. The reader already knows Sanborn regards James as "reckless". This is bound to lead to disagreements. Another sentence about the subplot. All of this must go. We add the info about the warehouse and the dead boy's body to the part left above: ...and the team retrieving unexploded ordnance from a warehouse, where James discovers the dead body of a young boy who has been surgically implanted with an unexploded bomb. James is sure that it is Beckham, while Sanborn and Eldridge are not entirely certain.

That night, James forces car jacks the DVD merchant to drive him to Beckham's house. Upon entering the house, James encounters an Iraqi professor and demands to know who was responsible for "Beckham." The professor thinks James is a CIA agent and calmly invites him to sit down as his guest. A confused James is then forced out of the house by the man's wife, and sneaks back into Camp Victory with the help of a sympathetic guard. That same night after exploring the aftermath of a gruesome tanker explosion, Eldridge is shot in a "friendly fire" when the EOD team tracks down insurgents responsible for the attack. The next morning, James is approached by Beckham, who is alive and well. Much to Beckham's confusion, he is completely ignored by James, who regrets the mistake. When airlifted off the base, Eldridge blames James for his injury, claiming James unnecessarily put his life at risk just so that he could have an "adrenaline fix."
 * This just needs a minor trim and some cleanup. Fix the "James forces car jacks" grammar mistake. Rearrange the latter portion and trim the middle, so that we can establish that it was James who ordered the hunt for the insurgents, helping the reader understand why Eldridge is mad at him. Remove "who regrets the mistake". How is this established? James merely looks at the kid once, then walks away. It's interpretive POV. Now we have: That night, James forces the merchant for whom Beckham worked to drive him to Beckham's house. Upon entering the house, James encounters an Iraqi professor and demands to know who was responsible for turning Beckham into a "body bomb". The professor thinks James is a CIA agent and calmly invites him to sit down as a guest of his household. A confused James is then forced out of the house by the man's wife, and sneaks back into Camp Victory with the help of a sympathetic guard. That same night, Eldridge is accidentally shot in the leg during a mission in which the EOD team successfully tracks down and kills two bomb makers. The next morning, James is approached by Beckham, who is alive and well. Much to Beckham's confusion, he is completely ignored by James. Eldridge blames James for his injury, claiming James unnecessarily put his life at risk just so that he could have an "adrenaline fix", referring to Sanborn's suggestion that the mission, which James had ordered, would be better suited for an infantry platoon.

The next mission finds James and Sanborn confronting a potential suicide bomber, a man is strapped with loads of dynamite, covered in a corset of heavy metal and bolted with multiple locks. They don't know if it is a trap to draw them in. James approaches the man in his bomb suit and with his 9mm gun cocked. The man begs him for him to hurry and help. James attempts to remove the locks, but finds that there is not enough time. He apologizes to the man and then runs for cover. Suddenly, the dynamite explodes, sending James flying and debris everywhere. He slowly begins to move and flips open the visor on his helmet to see a kite flying in the sky above him. On the ride back to the base, Sanborn becomes emotional and confesses to James that he can no longer cope with the pressure of being in EOD, and relishes the prospect of finally leaving Iraq and starting a family.
 * "a man is strapped with loads of dynamite, covered in a corset of heavy metal and bolted with multiple locks" In essence, he has a bomb strapped to him. Mentioning all the locks and metal doesn't help the reader further understand that a bomb is strapped to the man. "They don't know if it is a trap to draw them in. James approaches the man in his bomb suit and with his 9mm gun cocked. The man begs him for him to hurry and help. James attempts to remove the locks, but finds that there is not enough time. He apologizes to the man and then runs for cover. Suddenly, the dynamite explodes, sending James flying and debris everywhere." Essentially, James can't get bomb off it time. He flees. Bomb explodes. Simple as that. "He slowly begins to move and flips open the visor on his helmet to see a kite flying in the sky above him." Why give undue weight to one thing James saw? Asserting importance of this is speculative. James also saw a cat running down the street, some buildings, some litter. Why is the summary not mentioning those things? Sooo...we trim and condense once again: With only two days left on their current tour, James and Sanborn are called in to assist in a situation where a man was forced to wander into a military checkpoint with a time-bomb strapped to his chest. James cannot remove the bomb nor disarm it in time, and is forced to flee before the bomb goes off. On the ride back to the base, Sanborn becomes emotional and confesses to James that he can no longer cope with the pressure of being in EOD, and relishes the prospect of finally leaving Iraq and starting a family.

Suddenly we are in a grocery store frozen food section where James is shopping back in the United States. Once at the cereal isle, James is taken aback by the boxes and boxes of choices. Back home, James tends to household chores, but he is out of his element. James tucks his baby boy into bed, explaining that boys love their toys and so many other things, but when he gets to be James' age maybe he'll understand that sometimes in life there is really only one thing a man loves.

An air convoy lands in Baghdad, carrying the new troops. James bravely walks back onto the Baghdad ground. As James walks into the sunset, in his bomb suit a title reads: "Days left in Delta Company's Rotation: 365."
 * "Suddenly we are in a grocery store..." Use of first-person for real-world perspective in a plot summary about a fictional piece of work. This needs to be re-worded. So where is James? He's at a grocery store in the United States, confronted with multiple choices in the frozen food and cereal aisles. He's then at a house, doing chores. In simpler terms, he's back at home. The next sentence dwells too much on details surrounding dialogue. We can tidy this up some more. "An air convoy lands in Baghdad, carrying the new troops. James bravely walks back onto the Baghdad ground. As James walks into the sunset, in his bomb suit a title reads: "Days left in Delta Company's Rotation: 365." In simpler terms, James has returned to Baghdad to do EOD work with a new company set to serve another 365 days. So now: James is next seen back at home with his wife and child, visibly bored with civilian life. One night he has an internal monologue in the form of speaking aloud to his infant son, where he says that there is only "one thing" that he knows he loves. He is next seen back in Iraq, ready to serve another year as part of an EOD team with Delta Company.

There we go. Revise and improve as you wish, but please don't bloat! It's okay if a plot summary (s-u-m-m-a-r-y!) doesn't cover every minute of every scene. Per the handiest and broadest policy of them all... this is meant to be an encyclopedic entry on the film, not a substitute for watching the actual film itself! Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's entirely too much explaining for what was obviously just a total revert of the material. If you wrote it clearly in the first place, you wouldn't need to explain it like that. If you were open to changes you would have worked with those new updates, instead of deleting most of them. Inurhead (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Premise or Summary
BovineBoy has asked me why I want to put back the original plot summary under "premise." (Which, of course, has just been repeatedly deleted by several people here). There was a similar premise over at Inglorious Basterds and on seveal other film pages. The Basterds one was suddenly deleted too. Strange how when I do something, others go around and delete examples of it on other film pages. I remind everybody that this was in the "plot" section before most of you starting contributing to this page.

The idea was this: people read Wikipedia and want to skim for content, not to get bogged down into poorly conceived, tedious plot breakdowns at the beginning of articles. Like WP:PLOT says, Wikipedia is not about "plot" nor "original" unsourced writing. So it seems like a better idea to give readers the option of a short summary (like a "log line" or "synopsis" for a script) at the beginning and then the full plot, further down in the article with more detail. The current plot doesn't get into the character or themes of the film. A summary can do this more effectively with less words.

Also that plot needs serious work. So I don't know why we keep returning to that clunky version. I added a lot of information that needed to be incorporated. Yes, it needed to be shorter, but we were working on that too. Deleting it all gets us nowhere and just perpetuates edit warring. Inurhead (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Would you deem it appropriate to include the premise into the lede section and then perhaps making this summary better, either by adding detail or whatever else it needs? It would seem that the "detail plot" you have added in the past seemed to be in retaliation, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part. It would be in the best interest for the stability of this article if different versions of the plot kept popping in and out. And on the subject of an entirely separate premise, I still have yet to see a good reason for it. I never liked it on the Inglourious Basterds article, but I never removed it. If a reader just wants an abbreviated version of the plot (which is the only good use for a premise), it would seem easiest to me to include it in the lede where they can read the summary of the entire article. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This suggests a fairly new way of handling film articles, so I think this discussion should not be limited to this talk page alone. I would recommend running this proposal by the discussion page for the Films Wikiproject. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not new at all; it's actually compliant with how an ideal lead should be constructed, and almost any developed fiction article on Wikipedia already does this. For example, the featured articles Changeling and Fight Club. However, Inurhead's point is a legitimate one; it wasn't too long ago that WP:MOSFILM recommended a a premise paragraph at the beginning of the plot summary. If the editor wants to discuss a change to the current recommendations to reincorporate this, it could perhaps be raised at WT:MOSFILM (even though, speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the status quo). Steve  T • C 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm all for incorporating a film's premise into its article's lead. I went ahead and opened a discussion about adopting/re-instating the policy that a "premise" paragraph be included in the main body, and it ultimately led to more mud-slinging. Your suggestion on starting such a discussion on an even more specific outside talk page is a good one, and hopefully someone else will get around to it (I'll spare myself of doing it, since it would, considering recent history surrounding discussions regarding this particular article, no doubt lead to more accusations and insults and cloud the issue at hand). Until then, I don't see why a separate "premise" section should be added to this article and the plot summary be expanded to nearly twice it's length in words while the outcome of such a potential discussion is pending. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I definitely agree on that. I've just read ; I might switch a couple of details here and there, but I agree with almost every trim of ultimately-unnecessary plot detail you made. Steve  T • C 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

$12,276,655 million?
isn't that a bit unrealistic, shouldn't it just be $12,276,655? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.241.93 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was clearly redundant. Inurhead (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section, Etc.
BovineBoy suggested on my talk page that I add the short synopsis to the lead section, which I have done. Thanks BB for the suggestion. It's a good compromise. Also I think if we add new sections, i.e. "Casting" that we should be careful to make sure that those responsible for those decisions are properly given credit, since Renner and Mackie and gang probably didn't cast themselves in the film. Regarding the "Reception" section. It's important to keep this section tight and use the best quotes from those reviews that sum up the review. The quote from Corliss about Renner's face is not really important. What, is Renner supposed to get rid of his face? I mean, we don't need any more Hollywood style plastic surgery nightmares, do we? Corliss was one of the first critics to champion the film, so his placement should be higher up in the list of critics. I have put it basically in the order that they made the reviews and included the "Ebert" controversy (the episode on his blog where fanboys have been mad at him for hating on Transformers) and conversely praising this film as one that they should go see. I think it's important to include this. Inurhead (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What did you have in mind to improve "Casting"? Regarding "Reception", I am not sure why mentioning "pudgy-faced" is an issue.  It is more the context of the whole quote, of how he looks "ordinary, pudgy-faced, quiet, and at first seems to lack the screen charisma".  Are the other characteristics a problem to mention?  If we're quoting this part, it seems weird to delete "pudgy-faced" as unimportant.  Also, we could move Corliss's review up if you desire; what I tried to do with that paragraph was to have a transition between Ebert and Corliss about Renner's performance.  If we switch them, what kind of new transition can we write to make sure the paragraph flows?  Let me know what you think! Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Development of the Film
I forgot to mention this. I think having a section called "Filmming" is inaccurate (besides many movies are no longer using "film" per se, anyway). Nobody calls it that. When they are "filming" as Erik put it, they actually call that being "in production". So, to use "Production" as the sub heading, we have to have a different top heading.

So I chose "Development of the Film" for the top heading which would include the "Screenplay" underneath that, then the "Casting" as you have it, then the "Production", etc.

Looking at this, I'm not sure why "Cinematography" is isolated from the other filmmaking crafts and not just part of the "Production" section (previously called "Filmming"). Seems a bit redundant, unless there is going to be a future sub-section for all of the other filmmaking departments too, such as production design, special effects, film editing etc.

Use of term "Screenplay" v.s. "Conception"

Again, they don't give an award for "best conception". They give an award for "best screenplay." Boal did more than "conceive" the script, he wrote it. It's an industry standard. They don't have "conception" departments at the studios, as lofty as that might sound. Besides, it is unclear at what point Bigelow came on and helped to develop the idea into a script, in which case "conception" of the screenplay might not even be entirely Boal's doing. Then there is also the "conception" of the film, in how it turns out, which is deeply affected in a docu-style by the editing and the cinematography, as well as actors improvising, and again, by the input of the director. A film can be entirely re-conceived as it is being shot. So it seems "Screenplay" is a better section header than "Conception" Inurhead (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS:FILM explains the breakdown. There are different stages in a production cycle.  I think we could merge the "Cinematography" subsection into another subsection ("Filming" like you suggest); just that apparently I'm the only one with access to the American Cinematographer article.  If you want me to incorporate it fully and merge it with a "Filming" subsection now, I can do that, so just ask.  Also, you make a reasonable point with "Conception".  What I was trying to accomplish was to cover the activity that led to the accounts and the discussion that led to the writing, which seems to me to be conception.  "Conception" could also encompass the film's style, you're right.  Let's try again to discuss how we could lay out the section and its subsections.  First, "Production" is the catch-all word across many reviewed film articles, and the subsections can run the gamut.  Obviously a "Filming" section is necessary and would make up the biggest chunk, once we fill it with details about the cinematography.  What subsections can we have to precede and succeed "Filming"? Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 12:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead section is reading much better. Also yes, looked at MOS:FILM which suggests the following:


 * The "Production" section can be organized into four parts, coinciding with the chronology of a film's creation (see the Filmmaking article):


 * development


 * pre-production


 * production


 * post-production


 * My only complaint would be that "production" falls under the header of "production". - Inurhead (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Venice Film Festival Entry
I checked the Festival screening schedule on their website and The Hurt Locker is not listed to be shown on September 4, or any other day, as indicated on the Wikipedia page. What's up?

Sincerely, John in Denver —Preceding unsigned comment added by John in Denver (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For some reason, the website only has screen dates for the 2009 festival. THL was shown last year (2008) and I know imdb is not reliable, the list it here and here are some other links agreeing   BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Movie date
When is the movie set? I've seen people saying it is set in 2007 and other say it's set in 2004. I think I'm gonna change the plot section to say it's set in 2007.--189.34.164.187 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that'd be incorrect. Why would you change it based on an assumption? Please, avoid that on Wikipedia on all occasions.


 * Boal was in Iraq in 2004, which I've read on previous occasions. (Never read 2007 anywhere.) And a quick Google search just now led me to the RottenTomatoes page, in which the plot is detailed.


 * A snippet: "In the summer of 2004,..."


 * Though I don't recall what date they may or may not have listed on the screen when I saw it back in June/July, I'm going to say that this seems verifiable, so stick with it. Okay?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2004 is when the Camp Victory name change occurred (as mentioned at the beginning of the movie). That's just an observation, but there are sources out there that also state 2004. I'll add a ref. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cinemaniac. Thank you Chappy. I also though it could be set in 2007 because of the Youtube reference, the Gears of War playing and the Uniform of the soldiers. It just seems strange that the director got so many things wrong.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just common goofs, I guess. I added a couple of secondary sources. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, interesting. Since I don't play video games, that went over my head. But the writer should be the one to blame, not Bigelow (who better win the Oscar and make history--oy, I'm hoping...and Best Picture would be nice, too, if it gets the critic award momentum...anyway, I digress).


 * But you're welcome nonetheless. With that knowledge, coupled with the YouTube inaccuracy, perhaps it is set sometime between 2004 and 2007? Wish we could get a clear answer on that. Let's keep looking then.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be looking for more sources.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, i couldn't find anything. My google-fu is weak. I could only come up with reviews. No interviews or anything like that.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies or no, the movie is apparently set in the summer of 2004. I found it on the official movie website's story section.--72.198.121.18 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a title card at the beginning of the movie that places the setting in "Baghdad 2004." There, 2004 would be the correct answer.Kp.murphy (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Awards
The film has received lots of awards, and seems destined to receive more -- should they all simply be listed in bullet form? This doesn't seem "encyclopedic". Perhaps they can be summarized and made into prose? Gene Omission (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most film articles that have similar numbers of awards use one of two formats to improve readabiilty and spacing. The table that's already there is a great start, the list of remainnig awards should probably be merged into it, and the formatting cleaned up to match what's in other film articles.


 * I think splitting them up some may also help, highlighting the major organizations then the other organizations, maybe even breaking down into early awards from festivals, majors and others? I don't know if we want every single award listed - that can trivialize just be sheer weight.  There should still be some text to call out anything unusual about a particular award (I think Inurhead noted that the film recieved the most awards from a particular organization than had been earned before), plus there are some other non-award honors the film has earned.  Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started some of the cleanup. I did the easy part right now - get the table formatting in-line with MOS and somewhat consistent with other films. There's no "set" style for film awards and it really shows. Ugh, might have to think about starting something about that at WP:FILM. The changes I made where to remove bolding except for the headings (see MOS) and replace the Won/Nominated with the templates Won and. Those will automatically color the background - kinda nice! Next is to go through the long text list above the award table, and move most of them into the table itself. A couple of paragraphs to highlight the major awards and special notes, and the result should be the same information but much easier to read.

Something that I think I'll eventually do is split the awards into their own article. Two recent examples with fairly long lists of awards are the Dark Knight (film)/List of awards and nominations received by The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire/List of awards and nominations received by Slumdog Millionaire. I really like how the Dark Knight list breaks down the lists - very useful!.

Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support a table format, and it seems likely that a sub-article is necessary to comfortably list all the awards and honors. Bullet format is definitely not the way to go. Erik (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I agree with what's been said; create a separate article and open it with some prose covering the major awards and accomplishments and follow it up with a table to include the rest. -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think a new article should be created, but also it should incorporate the references that can be found now in "bullet format". It could be a featured list article. --Harac (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards cleanup - update
I consolidated the entire section to the table as much as possible today, including moving the references. Most awards are referenced, some aren't. I'm going to see if I can find links to "official" pages for any of the awards, and replace the references if I find any. The bullets that I left include unusual information, and will be part of a summary paragraph that I'll hopefully get written today. I've got a few notes from the consolidation. One point mentioned that the film was nominated for 6 awards, but only 4 were listed, so I'm going to check that out. I'm also going to look for articles for specific years for the major awards (Golden Globe vs 67th Golden Globe Awards). I think the next steps is to get the summary written, then split the awards into a separate article. Appreciate the comments! Ravensfire (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Summary written and split completed! List of awards and nominations received by The Hurt Locker has been created.  Please, please, PLEASE review, edit and update the summary on this article!  It should highlight the major awards and any unusual circumstances around a particular award.  Obviously, we're waiting for a few more major awards to release nominations, plus the actual award.  But keeping things up to date is what we're here for, right?  Ravensfire (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lions for the Lambs is about Afghanistan
Lions for the Lambs is about Afghanistan, while here it's listed as an unsuccessful Iraq war movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.143.142 (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Section on characters
As usual here, there isn't any. But going by characters can provide an alternate view of the plot that makes it much clearer. Compare the review in the NYTimes by A.O. Scott. It of course suffers from the traditional newspaper convention of not giving the ending, and it differs from us by unreservedly giving opinion on the basis on his own professional standing. But he knows how to describe a film. So does Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun Times. So does Kenneth Turan in Rolling Stone The article criteria by the WikiProject here shows that they do not. Perhaps the community at large will think better of it. They certainly include a section on characters in every other type of fiction.  DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)