Talk:The Chumscrubber

The Chumscrubber has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 30, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Green Day

Two people from this movie has been in green day videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.124.134 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2006 May 13

You can fit in the green day information, somewhere in the article if you want... it would be like trivia or something. --Cbrown1023 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

The 'tuba is not a euphonium' bit in the trivia section was lifted directly from IMDb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.208.181.253 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 2006 August 15

A euphonium is basically a small tuba, and it is not at all surprising that a small child might be playing one and call it a tuba (especially when speaking to non-musicians). —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Unsure about the Thomas Curtis guy the wiki link to him is of a guy that died in the 40s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.7.18 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 2006 November 25

Fixed, it should have been Thomas Curtis (actor). —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Analysis

The third sentence is IMHO too POV to remain without a citation (even with a fact tag). Removing it leaves the rest of the paragraph redundant as the information already appears in the introduction:

The title itself refers to a video game character featured in the story. He is a decapitated street hero who fights the mutated remnants of his destroyed city. His head being severed is perhaps a metaphor for the indifference and lack of emotion that is shown by the youth in this story.^{[citation needed]}

Straussian 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Plot, Discussion

I did the plot, I also added the Sleep Song discussion 1/8/2009

Need other people to help out with the Sleep Song discussion. 1/9/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtectMeAura (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Plot, Discussion #2

Comment regarding the critical analysis:

Rotten Tomatoes' and Rolling Stone's criticism lacked pertinent reason and insulted the film without really understanding it. Peter Travers noted the movie's "appallingly clumsy and stupid take on drugs, kidnapping and suicide in suburbia," but failed to recognize the central theme behind the film. The actual theme could be argued, but the film was not attempting to approach these subjects in an "un-clumsy" manner. The only clumsiness was in Peter Travers' illogical and erroneous analysis. Perhaps he should go back to film critic school and learn to analyze a film for its actual theme, not whatever the mindless viewer decides! Keep it up, Roper!Johnnyczecho (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)johnnyczecho[reply]

As an aggregate/consensus of reviews from many different critics Rotten Tomatoes provides an overview of what critics and how the film was received said irrespective if we agree with those reviews or not. I quite liked the film and what it seemed to be trying to do but I think it is fair enough for critics to say they don't think the film successfully expressed those themes. Box office and awards can help show a counter point that despite critics not liking the film audiences might like it anyway (but far as I know this film didn't do very well at the box office either but that section needs expansion). Even though 34% from Rotten Tomatoes means reviews were largely negative I did try to include some comments from reviewers who liked the film. The criticisms Peter Travers made was harsh but giving the overall RT rating, and a sample good review and a sample very negative review seemed liked the most concise way to sample the range of opinions on the film. -- Horkana (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need other people to help out with the Sleep Song discussion. 1/9/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtectMeAura (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

I prefer to have an explanatory comment in the source so any editor who sees the cite tag will have enough context to provide a suitable citation (and not just provide an IMDB link) but since other editors prefer to delete all comments I'll repeat the explanation here.

The film won the Audience Award for best film in Main Competition at the Moscow Film Festival. {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)
- IMDB says only that Arie Posin was Nominated for "Golden St. George" at 2005 Moscow Film Festival and does not mention this film winning any awards of any kind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406650/awards

-- Horkana (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

The numbers claims the budget was $6,800,000. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/CHUMS.php
Movie Freak claims the budget was $10 million and discusses how surprised they were that the film looked as good as it did on such a low budget. http://www.moviefreak.com/artman/publish/int_chumscrubber2.shtml
With these conflicting sources it would be good if we had additional sources that might help confirm one number or the other. -- Horkana (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Movie Freak reliable? I know The Numbers is. A quick look at Movie Freak shows that it does not appear authoritative. Erik (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I'd ever looked at Movie Freak before but since it is an article and not raw statics you think the interviewee might have corrected the journalist if 10 million was wildly inaccurate. I suppose 6.8 does round up to ten to keep the conversation simple and the figures from The Numbers might not include the marketing budget. The numbers website is widely used in wikipedia, if you want to change to that figure go ahead. I just wanted to do a little research and was unwilling to leave the section blank when we did at least have a weak source which is better than none at all. -- Horkana (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: James086 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is a bit of an awkward intro to the article, perhaps eliminate the writing part so it's just "...directed by Arie Posin, starring an ensemble cast led by Jamie Bell." so that it flows better. The writing could be integrated into the second sentence as "The plot, written by Posin and Zac Stanford, focuses on..."
The lead section could use a small paragraph about the themes of the film per WP:LEAD, it doesn't summarise that section of the article currently.
I've given the plot a copyedit, diff. I hope I haven't changed the meaning.
It's stable, neutral, referenced and covers the topic well.
The lone image is correctly tagged and suitably used (I added a little to the fair use rationale, although it was already ok).
Just the few things above before I pass it. :) James086 ^Talk 20:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes myself and passed the article. James086 ^Talk 13:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Chumscrubber. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403124619/http://moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=2005 to http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=2005

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) 05:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Chumscrubber. 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) 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Chumscrubber. 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) 16:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]