Talk:Fireproof (film)

Hateful Quotation

I took off the extremely hateful vitriol that is quoted in the criticism section. I don't have a problem with criticizing the acting in the movie but this garbage of "the movie hates women" is absolutely ridiculous. If this is included then we need to put quotes from people like Rush Limbaugh on every Spike Lee movie..or every other leftist propaganda Hollywood movie. It's a double standard to include quotes from idiot critics on Christian movies but not include them for lefty pages because you don't like what their idiot critics say. Either don't include the ridiculous quotes on all pages or do..but don't disinclude them on "liberal" leftist pages and always include them on conservative traditionalist pages. Ridiculous how many college kids ruin Wikipedia by regurgitating their professor's views with the way they edit these pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.174.204 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Onion's AV club is a well-known source of film criticism. Rush Limbaugh is not known for film criticism (or intelligent discourse, but that's beyond the scope of this article). Also, sign your posts. Teflon Don (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firerproof teaser image.jpg

Image:Firerproof teaser image.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fireproofpreview.jpg

Image:Fireproofpreview.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FILMS/Assessment request response

American Eagle has requested a reassessment of the article, and at this time it should remain at Future class (until the film's release). Otherwise a few quick changes can be made to ensure it reaches Start class at its release. I'd recommend removing the excessive links to Wiktionary for basic words and to remove the crew section (if you want to include that section, use prose to document the most notable crew members). Expand the plot once you've seen the film and add one more section (such as critical reception or box office performance) and you'll have yourself a start class. You can then either reassess it yourself or let me know and I'll take another look. Good work so far and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Excess Wiktionary links removed, crew shortened (all I did was remove the least notable), I will be adding the box office results as soon as I see the on Box Office Mojo, and I plan to watch the movie on release date (September 26, 2008) and will expand and/or proofread the plot. I looked for any criticism it had gotten, and searched for awards, but I didn't find any. I will keep my eye out for any of those. A question: do you think I should shorten the "cast" section? I see that most pages on have about the top 5-10 actors and a few notes. I don't know about that. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced NPOV

The whole second part of "reviews" is complete unsourced NPOV, "Cameron acts like a childish jerk," "he—and the movie—hates women," etc. If a good reference is provided, it can be worked with. But if not, I will remove it again. And another thing, how is "The Onion's AV Club" notable? I chose my reviews and comments carefully, Baptist Press, Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, etc. Please do this also. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The A.V. Club is fairly well-known and well-regarded by many; I don't have a problem with including their review, as it seems fair to include negative reviews as well as positive ones. However, it is unacceptable to simply quote from the reviews without providing links to them - references, especially for negative reviews, must be provided. Could whoever originally added this section please do so? Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cleanup the section, and added the references. But some users keep adding anti-Kirk Cameron hate speech that has no importance to the article. Unless you will provide a reason why the sentence should be there, I will remove it again. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The extra sentence is added to give a better understanding of Scott Tobais' criticisms of the film. The section of the review quoted before gave the inaccurate impression to the reader that Scott Tobais was criticizing the film simply for its message when the review mainly focuses on the unlikability of the film's main character and the perceived misogynistic undertones of the film. The review is properly sourced, relevant, and when matched with the cited positive reviews its inclusion passes the NPOV test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"The acting in Fireproof is less than stellar in a few cases" is proper criticism and I think should be in the article. But saying Cameron "hates women" and is a "childish jerk" is not. That is anti-Cameron speech and not important to the article - not even as criticism. I am removing it, please do not add it again. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Having a unlikable, shall we say hatable, main character is most deffinately a valid critisim of a movie. Feeling that a movie's message is also a valid critisim. This is relevent to the article as it is an example of a secular reaction to the film. Just because you disagree does not make it in-valid critisism. "Cameron" is not a sacred cow and there's no rule that says speech quoted on Wikipedia cannot be "anti-Cameron." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested comment about this. Wikipedia should not be anti-anyone. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment is not really about Kirk Cameron, it is about a fictional character played by Kirk Cameron. I added a clarification in brackets making this more clear. The entry is clearly marked as a quote from an established professional in the field of movie criticism, not that of anyone writing the Wikipedia article. The quote isn’t anymore “anti-Cameron” than the positive reviews are “pro-Cameron.” An article with a neutral point of view should give both views an equal chance. If reviews praising the movie's messages are acceptable, so too should reviews critical about the film's messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT CAMERON OR "THE FILM HATES WOMEN"...RIDICULOUS! LIKE I SAY IF WE INCLUDE THIS THEN WE HAVE TO INCLUDE QUOTES FROM CRITICS WHO HATE SPIKE LEE AND MAKE HIS FILMS SAY HORRIBLE THINGS THAT THEY WANT IT TO SAY..IT'S CALLED SETTING UP A STRAW MAN AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT RIDICULOUS QUOTE DOES! GET A LIFE AND STOP TRYING TO SMEAR KIRK CAMERON JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST AND YOU HATE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES!

The evidence is in the movie, as interpreted by the reviewer, film criticism is all about interpreting a film's content. Pages about Spike Lee movies are filled with negative criticism, and that's perfectly fair because critical consensus all about differing opinions being given equal footing. Who the hell are you to talk about setting up a straw man when you go around calling people you don't know atheist/agnostic just because they want to allow a full range of opinions to be heard about a movie, I take offence at that. Your delegating of the entire Scott Tobais quote only, even the part that wasn't disputed in the discussion before, just shows your own immaturity. What's more THIS IS A QUOTE ABOUT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, NOT THE ACTOR WHO PLAYS HIM, if a critic says they think Hannibal Lecture is evil it isn't a smear against Anthony Hopkins. Just leave the quote intact until the comment request goes through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the quote says, "Cameron acts like a childish jerk, even in the reconciliation phase, and the underlying reason is that he—and the movie—hates women." That is talking about Cameron, not just his character. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it is an adequately-sourced quotation that has relevance to the article. The information is not presented as fact, but as the opinion of the reviewer in question. I don't see a problem with including the quote. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to find a negative review of Fireproof from a more well-known critic who doesn't think that Cameron is "childish jerk." But that still reports that the movie is not good. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Tobais quote, but also added another positive review. The section now has one positive review, two middling reviews, and one negitive review. This is a completely balance collection of quotes rulling explaining the full range of mixed opinions on the film. The section seems to be 100% fair by any standard at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with the fact that he gave it an "F" and said "Fireproof gets hung up in a lot of Promise Keepers hoo-hah about reaffirming marriage as a covenant with God rather than a contract filed at City Hall." That is a critical opinion, and is fine. But the part where he says Cameron (and not just his character) is a "childish jerk" and "hates women" is non-Wikipedia and should not be here at all. Roadshell, please understand and don't add that part back. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the full quote. PLEASE LET US DISCUSS IT HERE BEFORE YOU REMOVE IT AGIAN. Please read the the review in its entirity, it is clear in its original context that Tobaid is talking about the character and is only using the actor's name as shorthand. The bracketed section I added to the quote a while back makes it completely clear to anyone reading wikipedia that the quote referes to the character. The quote is relevant, read the full review and you'll find that it is not the "promise keeper hoo-hah" that Tobais objects to, he in fact says that the "promise keeper hoo-hah" is "just a cover for two fundamental points about the movie: Cameron acts like a childish jerk, even in the reconciliation phase, and the underlying reason is that he—and the movie—hates women. Leaving the quote the way you want it misrepresents Tobais' objections to the film, it makes him sound like he's against the marriage theme when he is actually against what he precieves as mysoginistic undertones. I do not see why commenting on the movies themes is not valid criticism, the various positive reviews quoted also deal with the film's overall themes, they just view them differently. If wikipedia can quote praise about the movies messages, it is just as valid to quote criticism of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The onion AV club, while hilarious, is not a WP:RS. It's designed to be a source of humor and parody, not a source of fact. Since this is an encyclopedia, we insist on reliable sources only. --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Onion AV Club is completely seperate from the rest of the onion publication. In fact, the wikipedia page for The A.V. Club states "Unlike its parent publication, The A.V. Club is non-satirical. Scott Tobais' reviews are included on aggrivate sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which I think establishes that his reviews live up to the WP:RS standard of: " generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Roadshell, may I ask why you continue to war over adding an unreliable, unimportant, anti-Kirk Cameron critic that is not even notable? This situation may need an administrator soon, by the way. I'm tiring over it. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue to war over removing a perfectly reliable, very important, anti-fictional character critic that is perfectly notable? I'm tired of it too, but this is completely within the rules of Wikipedia. God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (User Roadshell) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, this "unreliable and unimportant" critic has been quoted in dozens of movie articles on wikipedia including: November (film), The Strangers, Paycheck (film), Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, The Mask of Zorro, The Killers (1946 film), Primer (film), Vicky Cristina Barcelona, if he's unworthy of quotation you're going to have a lot of pages to re-edit. Scott Tobias is an accredited film critic, he's a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and is used by review collection sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, in fact he's even listed as a Notable Journalistic Critic on wikipedia's List of film critics. He's certainly every bit as "notable" as Hannah Goodwyn, Julie Clawson, Mitch Temple, and Michael Foust. Aside from the fact that he doesn't agree with you, I don't see why he would be seen as "unreliable and unimportant."

I think part of the problem here is that there is some confusion about the AV Club's format in film reviews. In reviews, they always refer to the character by the actor's name, so people unfamiliar with the story can follow what the review is saying. So, when Tobias says that "Cameron...hates women," he is referring to Cameron's character, although I can see how that would create confusion taken out of context. -skijumpjamaica, 16Dec08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.229.223.100 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And once agian American Eagle tries to change it. Listen, you're jsut going to have to accept that there is a wide variety of opinions about this movie, and you're not going to be able to hide that fact from the Wikipedia community is some deranged attempt to make it look like this movie was universally liked when it wasn't. I'm not going away and neither is this quote, it lives up to wikipedia's standards, there is not legitimate reason to remove it, your bais is quite obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did not remove it (see here), that was a false accusation. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could always ask Tobias to settle this for you. He's aware of what's going on here. From his twitter page:

Wow, a little shocked to find my review of FIREPROOF is setting off an inferno, if you will, in the Wikipedia discussion section. 9:58 PM Dec 13th, 2008 from web

Here's the link: http://twitter.com/scott_tobias?page=5

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.176.148 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 

I agree with AE' that the sentence "Cameron acts like a childish jerk, even in the reconciliation phase, and the underlying reason is that he—and the movie—hates women" should be removed. If if a lie is sourced it doesn't make it true or encyclopedic. Why would Sherwood Pictures make three feature films in a row (all of whom have a married couple as main characters) if they 'hate women'? Invmog (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a lie, it's an opinion. This whole article is bizarrely skewed toward positivity, when the vast majority of serious film critics (i.e. those who review films for a living, not religious hobbyists with blogs) gave it negative reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.252.66 (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SAICFF

Could someone add in this article that it won best feature film in SAICFF (San Antonio Independant Christian Film Festival) in Jan. 2009. http://www.independentchristianfilms.com/ Jehorn (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read some news reports about that and will be adding it shortly. Thanks. TheAE talk/sign 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.194.79 (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might also be notably enough to include that in order to win the best feature film award it beat 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', 'The Widow's Might', and 'The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry' but I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to add that in there or not. Invmog (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent Film

The statement that the movie was the highest grossing independent film in 2008 is incorrect, by the definition of "independent film" that is most commonly used, specifically that it was not produced by one of the "Big Six" Hollywood studios. Several films, including Twilight, Rambo and Saw V were produced by independent producers and made more money. (The statement does accurately quote the article it cites, that article is just wrong.) For details, see http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm

There is an argument that the independent films with higher grosses are still part of the Hollywood system and Fireproof was made outside of that, so that its high grosses are still notable. That makes sense to me, but it should be phrased more precisely than simply "independent film". I'm not sure of what the best phrasing would be.

I removed the statement once, but someone else put it back in. I'll leave it for now to see if someone can come up with a better phrase to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.99.155 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The other films mentioned are independent, but backed by mini-majors (Summit, LionsGate), so I agree there should be another term for a film made by smaller production companies like Cloud Ten and A24 (which made "Spring Breakers"). I'm just not sure what label that would be. Perhaps focusing on it's profitability (%500,000 budget vs $30+ million return) is better than its status as an indie film? 12.46.106.11 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA comments

This article has great potential to become a WP:GA, but it needs some work. Here's a checklist for anyone to work on:

• Shorten plot summary: although it is a good plot, it is supposed to be a summary, not the entire detailed script (taking up half the article). The plot is currently 10½ paragraphs long. I'd recommend shortening this down (by removing unneeded trivial info, removing word clutter, etc.) to about six paragraphs.
• The references need a lot of formatting cleanup, and I will probably be able to do this myself.
• Many unreliable sources. The following sources need to be removed and replaced: 1, 2, 3, most the sources in "Marriage views", and a few others scattered.
• Check for spelling, grammar and correct MoS.

– American Eagle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you feel the need for having the plot summary edited right away, I'll volunteer to do that. I'm going to be quite busy the next two or three weeks though, so I doubt I'll be able to get to it during that timeframe... --Filmcom (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this article will probably take several weeks to get to GA. Thanks for the help. =) American Eagle (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm so impatient, I've gone ahead and did everything I mentioned. =) I've listed this article at WP:GAN for review. :D American Eagle (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fireproof (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hold. Article requires a little attention. Opening sentence requires 4 or 5 references, plot may need a touch up ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the reviewer's concerns were not addressed, nor has there been any dialogue, I'm procedurally failing this article since too much time has passed. Please address the concerns and review the guidelines and attempt a renomination on a later date. If you would like my suggestions on improving the article, let me know, and I'll be happy to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be mentioned somewhere that this film is just another "lifetime" movie where once again the man is entirely at fault, and anything the woman did was just incidental to him being a jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.25.63 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't be neutral. It's not our place to review the film. 68.222.103.70 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" section bias

1) Fireproof has received generally negative to mixed reviews from the non-Christian, secular press.

'Secular' (implying no particular religious affiliation) is a useful adjective here, but 'non-Christian' is more troublesome. A secular critic (i.e. one who does not review movies with an overtly religious tone/viewpoint) can still be Christian.

2) The film was received extremely positively by Christians, a second movie would be a bounus with kids!

This wording is strange and biased. It treats "Christians" like they are some kind of atomic entity. Consider by analogy a phrase like "Friday was received extremely positively by African-Americans." If the most obvious fans of movie X are members of social/ethnic/religious group Y, it doesn't follow that all (or even most of) group Y are fans of movie X.

To put it another way: over 75% of USA citizens consider themselves Christians, and I'm sure there is a very large spectrum of opinions about this movie.

Also, when taken with #1, this line asserts that most movie critics are not Christians. Which is probably false.

--98.230.53.210 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the phrasing. In any case, there is a shockingly clear divide when you look at the reviews by secular mainstream sources and those by overtly Christian sources. 71.49.85.130 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm bringing up this page because of an obvious bias towards Christian reviewers/awards, and general language that violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.181.179 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — 68.195.181.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you provide specific examples? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. How long until the challenge is considered expired? 67.233.241.19 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Since he hasn't responded in three weeks, I went ahead and removed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

40 Days

Hello. Is there any evidence to suggest that (ie in Critical Reviews) the significance of the fact that Caleb's task is for the duration of 40 days? Has anyone come across anything to suggest that this is similar to the 40 days and nights that Jesus spent in the dessert? (Galaxycat (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

The parallel is pretty obvious, similar to 40 Days of Purpose and the other Rick Warren programs, but that observation only belongs in the article if we can source it. All talk pages are for improving Wikipedia rather than our own speculations and research, however interesting! Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot detail

Article currently [1] reads in part Sometime later, during a rescue, Caleb sustains first-degree burns and while he is being treated at the hospital where his wife works... (my wikilink). I'm skeptical... Catherine is certainly told by a gossiping nurse that the burns are superficial, but the truth is I think intended to be that they are far more serious... probably only second-degree but certainly that.

Perhaps the solution is to change this to the (easily sourced) statement that Catherine is told that the burns are superficial, without saying whether this is true.... I don't think the film actually says either way either, but I could be wrong. Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fireproof (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090125130418/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?rid=11737 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?rid=11737
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206095725/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i55545185203bc0b1c6b88813cebf3212?imw=Y to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i55545185203bc0b1c6b88813cebf3212?imw=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)