Talk:Dogtooth (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Greek links

Please add anymore you think are useful! Lugnuts (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


wording

What is a "car boot"?--Mjpresson (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The boot of a car. Lugnuts (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts doesn't want to mention that it's the trunk. 8D --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Tarintino would do a "trunk shot", his non-union Greek-equivalent would do a "boot-shot"... Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sarcastic and unhelpful response.--Mjpresson (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a stupid question... Lugnuts (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts I find you to be abusive and snide. Consider YOURSELF warned, going to ANI. --Mjpresson (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

errors and omissions

Some issues with the summary.

  1. We don't know which of the daughters is older. (I think)
  2. The knifing of the son by his sister needs to be included.
  3. I have to check but I'm pretty sure the son's eyes were open in the bathtub with his sisters.
  4. Were the siblings "mourning"?
  5. Perhaps we should mention that the father works at the "factory" in an outwardly normal way. We assume it's his factory but is there evidence for that view?
  6. The father's assault has no legal consequences, which perhaps deserves to remain unmentioned but perhaps not.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points, RC.
  1. The daughters are listed as elder and younger in the credits (although I was convinced they were twins)!
  2. Agree.
  3. It needs checking, but I'm 99% sure his eyes were closed.
  4. I think they were mourning the loss of their brother. I guess it's hard to define.
  5. Agree that he works in the factory in a normal way. There's no evidence to say he owns it (or doesn't own it), and I don't think it's that important either way.
  6. I Don't think it needs mentioning.

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little chary of interpreting the emotional states of the siblings when their experience is so different and the unseen brother is so sketchy besides. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on dialogue, it's clear she was watching Rocky IV (the robot, he's talking to his son, Apollo Creed on the phone).

About point 3: I have just seen the movie and confirm that the boy keeps his eyes shut during this scene.--Lapost (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

Note this is not an American film, and therefore should not have American-style spellings. Lugnuts (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film is not in English at all, so it's neither American nor British nor Indian nor Jamaican nor South African. Perhaps you have the idea that British style is the default and it is not. In fact, since Wikipedia is an American company founded by an American, perhaps you will kindly agree to use American style exclusively in the future. Sound unreasonable enough? Much obliged, foreigner. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foreigner? Please remain
WP:CIVIL. This is your first and final warning. Lugnuts (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Failing to recognize an ironic joke? Are you sure you're really British? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hide casual racism behind a joke. Lugnuts (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're imagining things. I have no idea of your race. In fact, the point of the joke is to hold a mirror up to your chauvinism. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to sneak in Americanisms into a non-US article. Your rationale that WP is based in the US, therefore we must adopt US-spellings is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Care to point out the policy that states this? Lugnuts (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you misunderstood. According to the guidelines, an article that start out American stays American. There is no such thing as a non-US article. Please conform to the guidelines. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETAIN, "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." If it has been using American English, then that is fine to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, thanks, Erik. You explain it better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Balance

Ring Cinema asked me about certain edits I made in an attempt to make the film's page more balanced, presenting criticisms as well as positives. I'm copying my response here in order to gain input from other editors about it.

"Hello,
The film may have been praised by the collection of 56 critics in Rotten Tomatoes, but omitting criticisms altogether does indeed make the movie appear to have been more highly appreciated (or at least, not criticized) overall than it was and therefore skews the article towards imbalance. I am not aware of any Wiki policy (please direct me to this if I am mistaken) discounting the validity of the opinions of audience members, so the >3000 opinions expressed on RT should have equal mention, particularly as films are created for audience consumption.
Wiki is about presenting both sides, even if one side is harder to find, else it appears whitewashed, and any detractions become more valuable due to their scarcity. In fact, A. O. Scott didn't even like the film (from one of the articles I read while examining the references), but the quote used (prior to my addition) made it appear that he DID like the movie, which is erroneous. I can say with all legitimacy that "there is no God", quoted directly from the Bible, with careful editing; the larger, actual quote is "The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God'", which changes the meaning significantly. I believe omitting the negatives from the reviews, and the summary I put at the beginning stating that the critics did indeed find the movie to be bizarre yet it had its merits in the cinematography, only enhances the truthfulness and balance of the article overall.
I thought the division of the statements from Greece vs. everywhere else were useful because the movie is from Greece, so the likelihood is naturally higher for possible favoritism, and international/everywhere else would possibly be more objective in their assessments of the film.
I will copy this into the Discussion section of the film's page to allow other editors to evaluate my logic and come to a consensus. LovelyLillith (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree about the lack of balance. A O Scott's review was negative and presented as such from the beginning. What I took most in consideration when I structured the original version of the English-language reception, was how the different aspects of the film were received, rather than just the numbers of positive and negative reviews. My basic idea was to sort the section by the two aspects that most regularly were brought up in reviews: how the film was crafted (positive pretty much in every review), and where its artistic value really laid (more divided and confused). Whether a reviewer simply liked or disliked a film isn't that relevant; and it's sufficiently covered by including the Rotten Tomatoes score anyway; what matters is what they actually said about the different components that the film consists of, and what more precise reactions the film evoked. If this only is about the lead section I agree that it is severely underdeveloped. Smetanahue (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could also mention that the current RT score is 93% positive reviews, so if that is anything to go by (which I'm very skeptical to myself), the article is already biased toward the negative by having one negative review out of five. Smetanahue (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't have a problem with balancing the reception section to include negatives, too. I think LovelyLillith somewhat misunderstood my remarks. Obviously, if Scott's review was mischaracterized, that's just a mistake. However, I don't remember his review as being so clear. I was left with the impression that he was trying to work through a response that was unfamiliar to him. (3) I have been in on some discussions in the film style group to the effect that audience responses (whether Rotten's or IMDB's) are not reliable because they are non-expert, self-selected and skewed demographically, and for that reason are best ignored unless they are notable for other reasons. 4) Smetanhue's idea to organize is close to my own; as I've mentioned, I think general/technical comments followed by personal/interpretive remarks works pretty well for this particular film. I don't think there's much disagreement here. I am concerned the section is getting long, however. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of information is ridiculous

Why is there such a huge amount of information on this film? Both the synopsis and the section on the film's reception is too detailed and ultimately boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.126.236 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Given the strangeness of the film's plot, some interpretation and analysis (from reliable sources of course) would help round out this article. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dogtooth (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

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) 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dogtooth (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.

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) 01:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lanthimos' second film

The article explicitly refers to this film as Lanthimos' second, citing as source the Cannes press release that (hidden in a PDF you have to download) only mentions Kinetta as his previous feature film. This is probably because Lanthimos didn't care to list My Best Friend (which was co-directed). However, considering Wikipedia doesn't treat this as his second film, because My Best Friend is very much listed under his filmography and in the "Films directed by Yorgos Lanthimos" bar, I think we should clarify, or the reader would end up confused by the notion that this is his second film but he directed two beforehand. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dogtooth_(film)&oldid=1201589383"