Talk:ARQ (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poster revert

I uploaded a file with the original colors intact and without compression artifacts. Why was this edit reverted? — Film Fan 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film Fan's LENGTHY block-log, with the last one being "Disruptive editing: disruptive movie poster uploads after final warning" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all you can ever come up with when the real reason is you hate the fact that I've outsmarted you so many times and you'll do anything to try and feel a little more important. So, other than that... why was my edit reverted? — Film Fan 19:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've never outsmarted me. You're just being disruptive, as the long-term pattern of edit-warring/block shows. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. So your answer is that you had no valid reason for reverting other than because you wanted to? — Film Fan 11:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still trolling. Good to see. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, abusing me in your edit summary and still not coming up with any reason why you reverted me? — Film Fan 17:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just love to edit war and continue you're disruption. Pathetic. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's clearly what you love to do, since you keep doing it to me and give no reason whatsoever other than your childish hatred. Why did you revert? — Film Fan 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film Fan, I'd suggest that you either 1) just let it go or 2) try an argument that convinces Lugnuts. You said the .png file is better technically. I don't doubt that it's true. However, I can't see a visible difference between the two images. I suspect that Lugnuts has the same problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You won't see the difference now because I've now replaced the jpg version with a 220px version so that Wikipedia doesn't further downsize the image, causing the loss in quality. It will however still be a lower quality image for all the users with settings set to display larger images than 220px, which is a smaller issue but the png is still preferable. Also, Lugnuts reverting me is nothing to do with the value of the edit and all to do with his longterm personal beef with me. — Film Fan 22:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the poster changes! I tried being diplomatic, and it got me nowhere. I've issued a warning on your talk page, and I mean it. The next time you change this poster without getting consensus, I'm going to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. I'm tired of this slow-motion edit war dragging on endlessly. If you can't make a convincing case to change the poster, move on to something else, such as the backlog at Category:Film articles needing an image. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reading my response and replying. — Film Fan 09:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis

The plot synopsis is not entirely accurate. The movie begins with the main character stunned, dragged, but managing to briefly escape and break his neck, then waking up to the same scene again - he (and the audience) realize that something is amiss even before he's bound in with Hannah. Please add this important detail. Thanks.

I skipped a few details to keep the plot under 700 words. I was actually kind of hoping someone might be able to streamline my longish plot summary to something a bit less detailed, but maybe you're right that I shouldn't have skipped over that. I'll try to fit it in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary spoilers

What's the point of revealing that the same actress plays both Hannah and Mother? People who want to avoid spoilers will skip the "Plot" section and look at the cast where they have this waiting for them. Not even IMDb does this. - Stefantalpalaru (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't censor spoilers. Otherwise, it would be impossible to write an encyclopedia article. People who are worried about spoilers probably shouldn't be reading Wikipedia articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Next argument against the status-quo: "Mother" and "Father" are not different roles, but nicknames of the characters that should not be mentioned at all in the "Cast" section. The "Plot" section is a better place for nicknames. Stefantalpalaru (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]