Jump to content

Talk:From Dusk till Dawn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:From Dusk Till Dawn)

Picture

[edit]

I am trying to get a picture of George Clooney's tattoo in the movie. Can anyone send me copy of the tattoo? I would really appreciate it.

Hi. I took a few screen captures from the movie. They're not the greatest but here you go... http://www.sightssounds.net/tattoo1.htm

Reception

[edit]

Most film articles on Wikipedia have a section that describes how the film was received, by critics and by audiences. The only thing this article has is an implication that it did well enough to have two sequels. Any info on reception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.13.191 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FDTD spawned a sequel and a prequel, not two of either. in the reception part it cited that both sequels were poorly received with only a citation to the sequel Texas Blood Money, and no reference to the prequel (The Hangman's Daughter) i have changed the sentence to read both were poorly received, but it still lacks a citation for the prequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.192.243 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "Till"

[edit]

"From Dusk till Dawn" doesn't look right. Till should have a capital T, not lower case. From Dusk Till Dawn.

No. "Till" is slang for the preposition "until." Prepositions in titles are not capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.215.121.82 (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Yes! The title of this movie is "From Dusk Till Dawn". All other sites list it as such. These would include: IMDb, AllRovi, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc. Also check out the image for From Dusk Till Dawn. You can see that it clearly reads as "From Dusk 'Till' Dawn" knighstalker (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less how it's written here, but you're argument is pretty silly: The poster reads "FROM DUSK TILL DAWN" and not "From Dusk Till Dawn" and the "TILL" is capitalized because is ALL CAPS! --85.176.61.27 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To revisit this for a moment, it's worth noting that the articles for From Dusk Till Dawn (soundtrack), From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money and From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter all have it written as "Till." Personally, I'm not particularly partial to either way but, for the sake of uniformity, should they not all be written the same way? Either this article needs changed to a capital T or the other three to a lowercase T. NJZombie (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NJZombie It definitely should be. Have you requested a move? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pussy" script

[edit]

Note: Part of the spoilers are listed below.

As the gang head into "The Titty Twisters", there was a man constantly boasting the "pussies" (read: prostitutes) they have. Can anyone who has the full form of this script also put that into the "Trivia" section, please? --Blackhawk charlie2003 12:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]

I don't have time at the moment to clean up the page, but someone needs to clean up that plot synospsis, cause it needs paragraphing and paraphrasing to all hell. If anyone can do that...well, fantastic.

Hey, I paragraphed the synposis I wrote but I really have no clue what paraphrasing is. Raven6247 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it better before? No offense Raven, but you probably don't need to detail every scene in the movie. AaronCBurke 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to The Evil Dead

[edit]

i've seen evil dead at least ten times, what's this about From Dusk Til Dawn having references to evil dead? --AlexOvShaolin 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous plot is no more

[edit]

I have removed the disgusting plot synopsis, by basically deleting about 98% of it and adding a sentence of my own.

The plot's still bad, but at least it's a huge improvement. The old plot was literally the worst thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. It explained every scene of the film, right to the end, including quotes! Terrible.

Anywho, I've not cited any references, but neither had the person who sat and typed out everything they could see in the film as they watched it. DanTheShrew (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why change it back?

[edit]

I know my plot is crap, but why change it back to that abomination?

At least leave me a comment on this page to explain your actions. DanTheShrew (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A form message telling me that my improvement is an act of vandalism is not constructive ctiticism.

How could anyone (other than the author of the plot I'm trying to remove) not agree that a couple of sentences describing the film is better than the novel adaptation attempted on the page here. DanTheShrew (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned in Ireland

[edit]

Do we have more information - why banned, why lifted ? Does that one line warrant being in the opening section ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is ruined !

[edit]

I dont have time and interest in checking all of this article but here is some problems with it:

  1. what is genre of this film at last !? Action Comedy,or Action Comedy Horror or ..... it seems there is edit war about it
  2. Where is the picture of dance and if its deleted why the description about it is still there ?!
  3. Is it vandalism !? because I cant find Quentin Tarantino nomination for Razzie Award !!!

--WikiBahal (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously

[edit]

Action-comedy? I've seen this film. There's very little humour in it. Tons of horrible murders, a rape, two of the -protaganists- set an innocent human on fire... Lots42 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't classify it that way, but there's black comedy in it - such as a guitar made out of a corpse. Jim Michael (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titty Twister

[edit]

Is it just me or does the rear of the Titty Twister resemble The Tower of Babel? – Lionel (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just you. Lots42 (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You, and perhaps your mom. --87.78.54.250 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to offend other people, Mr. Anonymous. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. This may be worth revisiting when the dust settles at the MOS discussion. Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– According to MOS:CT, prepositions containing four letters or fewer should not be capitalized. This article is located at From Dusk till Dawn for that reason, and the other articles should be moved accordingly. Relisted. BDD (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) 87.79.208.25 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm sure that a capitalisation guideline is helpful in the many cases where capitalisation is ambiguous; but when all sources capitalise something the same way, it's best to stick with what sources say instead of making up our own capitalisation to suit some internal norm. bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I "morally" agree, but that's an issue we'd have to take up at WT:MOSCAPS. MOS:CT leaves no wiggle room for this. The "till" in all these titles needs to be lowercase. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a guideline rather than policy, isn't it? I see no reason to slavishly follow a guideline in cases where it deviates from what the sources actually say. bobrayner (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue of sourcing. We don't source style, we use the in-house style manual for that. The producers are using their method of style, we use ours. Simple. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone uses the producers' style. Except us. And that's simply stupid imho. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then discuss at MOS:CT and seek consensus for change. Until then we have to follow house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I started this request. Thank you for participating. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seriously suggest you take a read of WP:POINT before trying something like this again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a nonsensical remark. What does it matter who initiates this (according to you) inevitable move request? How is this move request "disruptive"? Please do tell. --213.168.117.64 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly nonsensical: "As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wee bit more complicated than that. I really do agree that the MOS should govern all stylistic questions on Wikipedia. If that is enforced over all applicable instances, so be it. Currently, with some titles conforming to MOS:CT and others which don't, we're in this typical "wiki-limbo" of having a rule which makes some sense but not completely and which is being enforced rather randomly, with local consensus governed more by chance than by a wide-ranging informed overview of the applicable arguments. I'd very much like to help us end this limbo one way or the other: Either by enforcing WPNCCAPS/MOS:CT, or by starting a discussion about an amendment to the guidelines (WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CT are both relevant, one for article names, the other for the article body).
However, it is (evidently, I believe) not my intention to "disrupt" Wikipedia. It's not like I'm starting twenty move requests all based on this point. This is the only one so far, and like I said, I wouldn't start other ones if there's a risk of this being perceived as disruptive. I have not started this request to "draw opposition", but to gauge a potential consensus, assess arguments and bring up unmentioned points which I deem relevant and constructive to the discussion. Obviously, I'm not without fault, but my intentions are good, and I consider it a bit of a stretch to be talking about "disruption to prove a point" with regard to one move request which anyone else could have started at any point.
On the other hand, if that accusation is the level best you have to say in light of my arguments, that's fine by me. --87.78.47.225 (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppost use of lowercase "till" per MOS:CT: prepositions containing four letters or fewer should not be capitalized. "Till" is a preposition of four letters, therefore should not be capitalised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAT that Rob references above, as well as WP:NCCAPS: "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ('a', 'an', 'the'), the word 'to' as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., 'on', 'from', 'and', 'with'), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." It is important to state that that is not a right or wrong answer about capitalizing "Till". There are different manuals of style, and Wikipedia uses the manual of style in which "till" should be lowercase. I reviewed Google Books Search, and there are examples of both "till" and "Till". There are definitely more capitalized words than not, but the goal of Wikipedia choosing a manual of style is to be consistent across the encyclopedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this RfC. Since then, the intro to WP:MOS includes the sentence:
Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole.
Truth be told, I was shocked by that RfC and with the way it was conducted (starting with the fait accompli of asking "should the phrase be removed" rather than "should the phrase be added"). But it is what it is, and anyone who now claims that stylistic consistency should be enforced across the encyclopedia is now faced with the fact that the Manual of Style itself explicitly disagrees. --87.78.47.225 (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me as an editor of film articles, that passage means that it is not required to have the same layout for every film article. In other words, the layout should befit the content. One example that comes to mind is whether or not to have a "Cast" section. Depending on the size of the cast within a film, we could have a simple bulleted list, a very detailed table, or just mentions in the plot summary. This flexible approach can be applied to other topics as well, as they can be written in a whole variety of ways. After all, the very next passage to your quoted one is, "Where MOS makes provision for more than one style option, editors should not change an article from one of those options to another without a substantial reason," which fits what I said. I don't think that your quoted passage overrides ones like the one at WP:NCCAPS: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." Items like this are niggling points that should have standardization to get the discussions largely out of the way so we can actually work on the encyclopedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that we're not running the risk of making ourselves slighly more ridiculous by formatting titles in a way that differs from every single instance of that same title found outside of Wikipedia's Walled Garden? I disagree. In fact, I'd topic-ban the shortsighted, common-sense-challenged zealots who put that passage in there. But that's just me. --195.14.223.59 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. I looked in Google Books Search and found several instances of "From Dusk till Dawn" as opposed to "From Dusk Till Dawn". Erik (talk | contribs) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do these instances amount to more than a fringe position? If yes, I'm all for applying MOS:CT. If not, it goes back to my argument. --195.14.220.226 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As bobrainer says. I can't word it better.
the "less than five letters" rule is under discussion at the MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1995 vs. 1996

[edit]

Per WP:FILMLEAD, we go by the first public release of the film. "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release". The 1995 award happens with many things as few awards are given for films strictly from January to December. A good example would be for albums. I recently edited the article on Leftism, which was nominated for best UK album in 1995, but lost to the 1994 album Dummy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this phrase of yours: "The 1995 award happens with many things". Do you speak English? From Dusk till Dawn has been acknowledged as the best horror film finished and screened in the year 1995. A film finished in 1994 or earlier would not be eligible for the title of the best horror film of the year 1995—see the voting procedures. 89.110.12.129 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A film may be copyrighted in one year but ultimately released in the next. Sometimes it is the same. On Wikipedia, though, we go by the year of earliest release, which mimics the approach that other publications take. Searching "from dusk till dawn 1995" vs. "from dusk till dawn 1996" in Google Books shows that 1996 is the more common year. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films is the ultimate authority in this question. The film was finished and screened (shown to a qualified audience) in 1995. 89.110.12.129 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. I checked the guidelines, and per WP:FILMRELEASE (at least for the film infobox), we want to identify the earliest release date, may it be a festival screening or a public release. The guidelines say "excluding sneak previews or screenings", and I think the latter criterion may disqualify this particular example. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMRELEASE is about the release date in the infobox. If a movie is finished in 1940 and released to a broad audience in 2013, it does not give you a right to misinform the public by saying, in the lead-in to a Wikipedia article, that it is a 2013 film. 89.110.12.129 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume good faith; nobody wants to misinform anyone. WP:FILMRELEASE is pretty well-linked with WP:FILMLEAD, so the release year in the infobox would usually match the release year in the lead sentence. With your hypothetical example, I'm sure we would approach that differently because of the difference. However, the difference of a year is miniscule, especially since 1995 as used in reliable sources is likely in reference to the film's copyright year, as opposed to when it got screened for the Saturn Awards. I think it is most appropriately categorized as a 1996 film here. If you want additional opinions, you can ask editors at WT:FILM to weigh in. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The year of a film's creation is legally defined as the year of the film's copyright. This is a hard and legally binding datum, which should be included in article lead-ins and may not be changed at discretion. WP:FILMLEAD does not say anything against it. 89.110.12.129 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright year does not have anything to do with that. If you just want to scream at us, I don't recommend going against MOS:FILM. There are several other films that have this issue, such as the GA I wrote a while back for Eyes Without a Face. It was copywritten in 1959, but it's a 1960 film as that's when it premiered. Please let discussion here come to a conclusion before attacking other editors and changing the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been screened in 1995, but without a source, our earliest release date is 1996 still.
This newspaper states the world premiere was January 17. So it remains a 1996 film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a film is finished in 1940 but released to the general public in 2013, it does not turn it into a "2013 film". The year of a film's creation is legally defined as the year of the film's copyright. 89.110.29.199 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to give me a source for that information, as you are currently going against MOS:FILM. Which is vandalism. Especially when you are removing sourced information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under US law and the Berne Convention the publication date takes precedence over the creation date i.e. from a legal perspective the creation date only counts if the film was never actually released. Therefore, despite what the copyright notice says (which is basically just the year when the work is registered), if it received its first public showing in 1996 then it is effectively copyrighted in 1996. If it can be proven it received a public showing in 1995 then it would have been "published" in 1995. There are many instances of films being released the year following their completion, so I don't think it's worth noting the date of creation unless the gap between completion and publication is unusually long. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on From Dusk till Dawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on From Dusk till Dawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'vampire crime' or 'action horror' in the lede

[edit]

Was going to bring this to the talk page once someone directly involved (like say User:Andrzejbanas) reverted the change instead of an admin needing to exert his/her undue authority to me, but whatever, I don't care enough about the genres anyway, with all the other POV inaccuracies in the article. Question is vampire-crime or action-horror (or something else)? WP:FILMLEAD says genres should reflect the majority of mainstream sources; I went through reviews on RT & other sources available with 'vampires' & 'crime' popping up more than the others. (I also wonder about the reliability of Box Office Mojo since it's owned by IMDB, but if it's as good as the others that's fine). Few of them are going to count as 'scholarly' anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barely made one (talk • contribs) 07:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo (BOM) is definitely a reliable source; see WP:FILM/R. The IMDb is unreliable because it's user-generated, but BOM is not user-generated. What we have right now is a citation to a reliable source. You've said that the majority of sources disagree with this, but you've provided no proof. The reason why it's cited is because people continually tweak genres without sources, based only on their personal belief. A citation to a database helps to keep this under control. BOM is authoritative for box office and budget figures, which means it's frequently cited in articles. This makes it an easy and quick choice – though there's nothing special about BOM with regard to genres. The AFI Catalog of Feature Films, AllMovie, or another reliable database might be even better, considering BOM is focused primarily on box office performance. Or one could show that the majority of sources do contradict this by posting links to these citations. Pointing to Rotten Tomatoes and saying, "I looked at lots of reviews" doesn't really count because many of the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes are from self-published bloggers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to those guidelines, Rotten Tomatoes would clearly be considered a reliable source as well since it screens whether reviews are from sufficiently professional sites to be RT-approved (as you linked me to what are considered reliable sources & the ones containing reviews are also included on RT). Its consensus describing it as crime drama-vampire hybrid should be a big enough sign. I'm assuming by having to provide proof, you'd want me to list 20, 30, 50 sources? Not exactly practical & it'd be better to check them yourself. I redid a google search on it & found reviews like these which seem typical in content: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/19/movies/film-review-enough-blood-to-feed-the-thirstiest-vampires.html https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/from-dusk-till-dawn-1996 https://variety.com/1996/film/reviews/from-dusk-till-dawn-1200444406/ https://www.empireonline.com/movies/dusk-till-dawn/review/. Although granted, I did also find several tags to action, comedy, & horror, so those 2 might not be undue weight after all...hm. Barely made one (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_Dusk_till_Dawn&oldid=1207316287"