Jump to content

Talk:Paul (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Release date

Internet sources say the release date is: 18th March 2011, But a TV advert on MTV Hits said: Valentines day. Thomas888b (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! It looks like it is Feb. 18 for the UK and Mar. 18 for the US. I've updated the article accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That's ok :-), also, the poster on the article says valentines day. (valentines day is the 14th of Feb) Thomas888b (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the US release date from the opening paragraph. It is in the infobox and doesn't need to be repeated. Sue De Nimes (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rating

R in the USA for language, pot smoking & some sexuality. http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/paul/ MPAA Rating R. 50.192.250.57 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't do MPAA ratings here, unless there is something notable about a particular film's rating. See WP:FILMRATING for more info. Millahnna (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Soldiers?!

Where has the idea come from that it's soldiers that Pegg and Frost's characters get into an altercation with at the diner?!? They're clearly just hick civilians

They are actually sailors.

Justin Reed

Is it correct to link to the basketball player Justin Reed in the cast section? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Production companies

This movie was not produced by StudioCanal, it was however produced by Relativity Media. This is backed up by both the movie itself, which lists Relativity Media in the opening credits and doesn't credit StudioCanal; as well as the companies websites, it's listed on relativitymediallc.com and not on studiocanal.com. Please do not add inaccurate information and remove the accurate. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

O'Reily

I would like to edit the summary to point out the fact that Joe Lo Truglio's character O'Reily did not die in the house explosion. If you see the end credits where Graeme and Clive win their award at Comic-Con he is in the audience alive albeit with a scorched face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.79.150 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be conducting the review. -- Matthew RD 20:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

  1. Well written: ✗ Fail. See notes below
  2. Verifiability: ✗ Fail. See notes below
  3. Broadness in coverage: ✗ Fail. See notes below
  4. Neutral: ✓ Pass
  5. Stability: ✓ Pass. No big editing conflicts
  6. Images: ✓ Pass. One non-free has a fair use rationale and right tags.

Comments

  • The lead section is too short, only three lines. It needs to be at least twice as long. The lead section is basically summarising the articles content; the brief on what the film is about, production, and reception.
  • In the plot section, who's Lorenzo Zoil? Who does her work for?
  • "Paul reveals that since he was captured by the government, he had been advising them in all manner of scientific and sociological achievements. Yet Paul had outlived his usefulness as a receptacle of knowledge, and his captors were intending to surgically remove Paul's brain in an attempt to harness his abilities". This is a bit too wordy. I'd try shortening it to "Paul reveals he was captured by the government, and advised them on several scietnific and sociological achievements. However, Paul escaped when he realised he outlived his usefulness."
  • The cast section, hmmm. Some credits have some expansion from the simple "he/she plays him/her", but then again not all them, I'd like there to be some description on what the characters are; how they're developed, actor's input into the character. Or, move the Bateman and Weaver stuff to the paragraph below.
  • The production section seems a little short. Is there anything to expand on it? The home media section lists special features that could be added in to the production section. Also, there are quite a lot of one or two lined paragraphs, which aren't really paragraphs at all. Paragraphs should be longer than that.
  • Why are there stars in the reception section? I never seen these in any other film article before. Seems decorative. Saying just "three out of four stars" is enough.
  • "Simon Pegg has stated that although he would like to film a sequel to Paul, the time and expense it would take means it is unlikely to happen.[31]" This needs a reword.

Sources:

  • There are quite a few sentences that are uncited. I added citation needed tags so you'd know which are unsourced.
  • Be sure you use cite templates on them.
  • Ref numbers 9 and 31 are just bare urls, you need to use cite templates on them too.
  • What's the publisher/name of author/date of article for ref 4?
  • What's the publisher/name of author/date of article for ref 8?
  • There are so many inconsistancies with the ref formats, they all need the name of article, date of article, accessdate, author of article and publishers if any. Make sure the dates are all consistant, they need to be all DD/MM/YYYY (for example 1/1/2011) or all M D Y (for example January 1, 2011)
  • Why is Twitter used as reference?

There still may be some issues but I'm not going to go delve into this review any further. I'm afraid this is a fail as there are too many things wrong with it. I suggest you sort out the issues above, and get it peer reviewed. When these are done, you may renominate it. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul (film). 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture references

There are so many pop culture references throughout Paul, that it would be folly to attempt to list them all. By the same token it would be subjective to try and cherry-pick favourites as these would undoubted not be the same as those preferred by other editors. Not only that, but none of the insertions are sourced, and some are dubious and WP:OR as to whether they are references to specific occasions or not.

For example, the comment about back to the future is highly debateable - there is nothing to suggest this is the case. I will accept that some mentions are definitely film references ("Get away from her, you bitch!") - but that does not make them notable for inclusion amongst so many other potential candidates.

As per Wikipedia:POPCULTURE great care should be taken on these sections, and I don't think criteria has been met here, for content, sourcing and formatting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted you again - as has another editor Paul Erik. Please discuss your rationale here before inserting again. My arguments against remain unchanged - the formatting of the section is poor, the content itself is unsourced, some are dubious (note that your claim that "[a]ll of the references are well known to those who are familiar with sci fi films" is inappropriate. Just because something happens in film "A" and also happens in film "B" does not make film "B" an homage to film "A". Sources are required to back this up. Also, I could get all tetchy with the implication that I'm not familiar with sci-fi films.) The sheer volume of nods to pop culture make it impossible to include all sources entries, and subjective over which should be included. Despite WP:OTHERSTUFF, precedent has been set that Ready Player One - which is not much more than a massive list of pop culture in a hardback, and the subsequent film Ready Player One (film) - contain no pop culture list. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
It is ok, you wanted to win so badly on this point, so congratulations, you won. Clearly, you have missed one the main points of the film "Paul", which was to pay homage to other sci fi and pop culture moments. As such, it appears that you are not familiar with the sci fi references in the film. Those of us who are familiar with them were able to easily pick many of them out. The proper information will be posted on another website for reference.

G

N 160.178.90.119 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the film and alien named “Paul”?

Why on earth with the film Benamed “Paul” unless there was something rather deep to it. Haps it is a reference to Saint Paul? Unlike Christ, one cud believe Saul/Paul not be fully human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:7987:642C:D23B:E89C (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1104147458"