Talk:The Fog (2005 film)

Plot Summary

This movie is a "not to be seen" one, a total waste of time.(from Sami,may 20. 2006)

I added a cleanup tag to the plots summary section. It needs to be rewritten and currently reads like someone's middle school book report. Gront 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you add some more info? I've watched half of the movie and didn't see the 1871 boat murder in the beginning. Edward Roussac (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Remake vs. Original

There should be a section of this article analyzing the differences with the remake and the original. Bronks 15 Jan 2006

Edits

I removed "one of my personal favorites" from Selma Blair's name, because it's completely irrelevent. Also removed the two conflicting "trivia" notes regarding who was slated to play Stevie Wayne - they directly contradict one another.

Mistakes section

The mistakes section seems to be a copy fo the copyrighted site http://www.moviemistakes.com/film5310, so I remvoed the section and added an external link to it. RJFJR 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

TV killer

I was told some people call this movie the "TV killer" because most LCD TVs cannot display the fog scenes very well. Is it true? I've never seen this movie. -- Toytoy 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

DeRay Davis Audition

"Before DeRay Davis auditioned and blew producers away." Did Davis write this himself? This is extremely POV, even more so than the Selma Blair line and should be deleted or have a citation added.==Hypermagic 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Fog 2005 film.jpg

Image:The Fog 2005 film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Whenever some tries to contribute to this page it is undone and replaced with a load of condensed crap that is apparently within some guideline some idiot in an office with no life has made up. I am sick of it you should be able to put whatever you want within reason of course nothing rude obviously but if it helps with the plot then why shouldn't it be allowed to be used. This 700 word non sense is the biggest load of garabage I have ever heard what happens when the article is very long and needs to be over 700 words? The Fog and Gone with the Wind are very different length plots but are they both going to be 700 words if that's the maximum liit and the Fog is already 700? It's about time somebody stands up to these idiotic rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Stiarts erid, Wikipedia's policy about writing about fiction says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." For articles about films, there is a consensus that "a concise summary" should mean between 400 and 700 words, as seen at WP:FILMPLOT. The guidelines say that depending on the complexity of a film, a longer plot summary may be warranted, but it should depend on consensus to do so. The goal of a plot summary is to provide context for the rest of the article; it is not intended to be an alternative to watching the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits 2

The Fog Edits

You clearly are trying to cause trouble as your disruptive edits and attitude have proven. As already pointed out to you, it is irrelevant to include details of exactly where the characters were on the boat when they were killed - only the fact that they were killed on the boat is relevant here. Inside or out, it is merely a minor detail, not a plot point. The plot summary is not meant to include every single minute detail. The way the article is written at the moment reflects the scene clearly enough, and the plot summary is already at the maximum 700 words, and there is no justification for making it longer than that since this is only an 85 minute film. Various people have tried to reason with you and you have done nothing but show yourself to be childish and irresponsible. If your disruptive edits continue, your account will be blocked from editing any further. 88.104.26.110 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you insulting people like this, that's another reason you would be threaten to block, because of your behavior.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Everybody is able to edit Wikipedia, but there are rules and guidelines that must be followed - and you have failed to adhere to these. You have already stated that you think these rules were created by (quote) "some idiot in an office with no life" and also referred to them as "saddo's" (sic.). You have then gone on to attack other individual editors, referring to one as "irrelevant" and another as a "dull witted bigoted idiot", purely because the rules were pointed out to you. The edit history of this article alone shows that you have engaged in blatant edit warring and uncivil behaviour purely because you want to have your own way, regardless of Wikipedia's policies, and several editors on this article page have told you that you are wrong. It just doesn't seem to be sinking in that your behaviour is the problem here. But if you are so convinced that Wikipedia is so "poorly run and corrupt", then please don't let us hold you up any longer. 88.104.29.253 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's it, just report Stiarts erid to the Wikipedia administrators. I just have enough of his or her behavior. Have this person blocked at least a day would tell this guy or gal that we are serious, otherwise he or she would think that we are bluffing.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you really mean that? Last time, you said that "trying to cause trouble" and would "settle it reasonably," yet you've launch a personal attack towards us. You've better honor what you've said, otherwise you would still be in danger of being blocked. Once your account is blocked, you've won't be able to log back in.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose to delete this argument please say if you have any objections within the next 24 hours otherwise will be assumed not. Please also note this is only applicable to those involved in the disscussion not outsiders, if outsiders do decide to comment they will either be ignored or their comments deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for whatever your agenda is, you don't get to place a 24 hour "reply or I'm doing it anyway" time limit on this sort of thing. None of the remaining comments have any severe civility issues that I noticed (I sped read it so pardon e if I missed anything) and pretty much every policy and guideline about consensus will spell out that this time enforced ultimatum is not how the site works. Here's what will happen if/when you remove this text again without actual verbal permission from the other editors; I or someone else will revert you again, and given the extensive list of recent problem edits on display on your talk page, you'll be reported to one of the various admin noticeboards, where you will likely be banned for at least a short time. I'm trying to help you here. Calm down, take your time, wait for the other editors to respond. A great deal of the above conversation (including some of what was in the ruder comments of your own that you deleted, again, ditch the attitude and focus on the content) is actually salvageable as being a legit conversation on improving the article. Even if consensus/site policy goes against your ideas, this sort of thing is still good to leave around in case future editors on the article have questions. Millahnna (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no reason for the plot summary to be changed from its 700 word version, and relevant plot details (such as Elizabeth being warned that if she touches the watch things will change, and identifying Connie as Andy's aunt) should not have been deleted just so that a totally irrelevant sentence about where the guys and girls were standing on the fishing boat when they were killed could be added (again). That kind of detail is excessive and not relevant to the plot. Looking at the history, it seems this article is being plagued by one troublesome editor and a couple of new single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Stiarts erid, if you continue this kind of disruptive behaviour after the various warnings you have been given, then your account will be blocked. You have been told to gain a consensus before making changes to the plot summary yet have disregarded this and continued with your behaviour. And deleting conversations on this or any other talk page will not hide the evidence. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think it is wise to start all this up again? Clearly you did not get your facts right, I am very angry about this article and page every time I have tried to make a contribution it is reverted to what a group of bullies think is better. Are you one of them? I am willing to discuss it normally and reach a comprimise but when I am told again and again no because of some stupid made up rule I get very, very angry. I WILL BE LISTENED TO IS THAT CLEAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given the chance for these fellow editors to talk resonably to reach a mutal decision about the plot but have proven they are too childish to do so. I am being bullied into accepting what they think is best with out being given a chance, they then wonder why I get annoyed with them when they won't let me put my point across or even listen to what I have to say. But apparently that is fair to bully someone into doing what you want and not give the other person a chance. I only reacted aggressively because they wouldn't listen to what I had to say or even try and reach a mutal decision, just bare that in mind when your editing it seems it has to be decided by a group of bully editors if it's allowed or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I will continue fighting until I am listened to and able to have my say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and we would endure your abuse.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Go away and leave me alone then and you won't recieve any will you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have had it with Stiarts erid's behavior. He called me a bully, a NAZI, and now an illiterate. He needs to be blocked because of his offensive behavior. It is obvious that we have an inconsiderate person who cannot take rejection well, and would resort to abuse to retaliate.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Get over it, move on and let it go it's not difficult. Once you've done that leave me alone and don't talk to me again please. I called your sock puppet friend a littke Hitler not a Nazi and that wasn't even aimed at you so don't know why you're in such a state about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We will, once you stop insulting people You have better learn how to be considerate, and stop your name callings.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking to one person unless you are also all the other sock puppet accounts too? Apart from this you don't seem to have grasped leaving me alone, and this is a funny way of ignoring someone. This isn't primary school, deal with being called a name and I will stop calling you a name when you stop winding me up ie leaving me alone never to come back (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

God!!!!!!!!!!!! First we have an edit war, now we have insults. ADMINISTORS, PLEASE DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE HAD IT WITH HIS ABUSES. IF HE CANNOT BE CIVIL, THEN THERE IS NO POINT FOR ME TO BE ON WIKIPEDIA IF I WOULD RECEIVE INSULTS!!!!!!!!!!!! The plot summary is already fine, yet he try to make a big deal by adding irrelevant plot points, and even added irrelevant names on the characters. I do not know what to do, if you can't block him, then I am gone.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Bye then. (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

right it seems the bully editors are being arrogant and biggoted and are insisting on having their own way again. Well I have just one thing to say to all those people who got in my way, and I don't care if I get blocked for this. FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to the report, he got another warning. Like he's going to take it seriously. Then he's going to apologize and be civil, yet he's going to break his promise later, just as before.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Please stop discussing other editors. WP:DR. All sides look silly in this. --Onorem (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So what are we going to do? We tried to get a consensus months before, and it didn't work and he still start an edit war. How exactly can we get an agreement when we are dealing with someone who can't keep his promise or following the rules? Pardon me, but the way he behave and demanding me to get over his insults, is already affecting me emotionally.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I linked to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for a reason. In any case, how they make you feel has nothing to do with this article and it doesn't belong on the talk page for this article. Didn't you say just yesterday that you were going to disengage from this for a few days? --Onorem (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see no discussion over content only arguing with other editors about their behavior. Coming to a consensus means bringing up the changes to the article you'd like to see and talking about the benefits and disadvantages of the changes. The discussion has to be about The Fog, not other editors.

So, how can the article be improved? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

One missing criticism if the film

I recall reading reviews criticizing the decision to take an R-rated horror film and remake it as a PG-13 film. That probably should be mentioned in the article as one reason some critics felt it failed (if indeed that view can be sourced). --67.101.223.176 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fog (2005 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/20070807005255/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306611 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306611

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 07:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)