Talk:The Hurt Locker - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inurhead (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 17 August 2009 (→Festival screenings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:17, 17 August 2009 by Inurhead (talk | contribs) (→Festival screenings)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Film: War / American Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Editing BADLY needed

Can someone who isn't a shill for this movie or a overhyper fan of the stars get this into decent shape? Opening graphs should be short, all the reviews need to be moved into a critical reaction section.

24.24.244.132 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Could still use a trim, though, to edit down the reactions. --Ckatz_spy 08:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Regarding the use of the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, I do not think that it is appropriate per WP:LEAD. First of all, the phrase is vague; what award, and what kind of award? It does not specify a difference between Best Picture at the Academy Awards and Best Summer Film at the Teen Choice Awards. WP:LEAD states, "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Also, "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." This is why the specific addendum was added to MOS:FILM; a lot of articles erroneously start out this way. Same with the usage of taglines and their promotional language. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Year of Release

It's just one of the points of contention, but let's actually talk about it. Several users (including me) prefer 2008, noting that the film was released in a limited manner in 2008. Several sources ( use 2008 as the release date. Others, including Inurhead, prefer 2009, saying that the film was released in the US in 2009 and that the limited release doesn't count.

After some wandering around, I found WP:FilmRelease, which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FilmRelease specifically says that the release date should be based on when it was released in the country that produced the film (there is no hierarchy placed on that in that WP), and specifically states an "English-speaking country" (since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages, not the Italian version). This is an American film. It is the standard that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has adhered to for decades that a release date is considered to be the date the film is released in Los Angeles, California ("rule 2"). AMPAS is a higher authority than unpaid Misplaced Pages freelance contributors on this issue. So, for all lists of "2009 films" which Misplaced Pages readers will be likely searching and choosing Academy Award nominees from, it would be wrong and even misleading to exclude The Hurt Locker which is a front runner by many critics accounts in this 2009 season. It seems the intention of those who are trying to list the film as "2008" (based on limited film festival previews in 2008), are trying to do damage to the film's viewership and odds at receiving awards, which also could result in fiscal harm to the film. That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons. Inurhead (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

Please stop with the spurious and unwarranted claims that anyone who objects to your opinion is trying to "harm" the film. While we are certainly not here to provide misleading information, we are also most definitely not here to support the film's press department, or as shills for the cast and crew. --Ckatz_spy 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you must agree, if you are not trying to mislead anyone, that The Hurt Locker should link to the release date page which is 2009, which shows its release listed THERE and not on 2008. It is not listed on the 2008 page because it was not released in the U.S. in 2008. So it should link to the proper page, which is 2009 and not 2008. The page shows U.S. Release dates, not Italian, not film festivals... Inurhead (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not addressing the release date, I'm addressing your apparent desire to control the content of the article, and your desire to weed out any material you do not agree with. This is compounded by your insistence on reverting valid edits while misleading edit summaries, your habit of making unjustified accusations against other editors, and your continued attempts to move this article from an encyclopedic treatment of the subject to that of a press release. I'd ask that you please reveal any connections you might have with the film or its cast and crew, because all of your edits to date demonstrate the distinct probability that you have a conflict of interest here. Having a COI does not preclude participation in the process, but it is important to ensure that your contributions are properly understood. --Ckatz_spy 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally came to the talk page for this, Inurhead. It's much easier to discuss this here than through reverts that eventually would have gotten people blocked. Misplaced Pages only works when people talk about disagreements - back and forth revert wars just don't work (See WP:3RR). That said ...

WP:FilmRelease does not say to use only the English release dates. That is ONE of the release dates that should be mentioned. The list is which release dates should be mentioned, as some films can have a massive list of release dates. There is no question that the film was first released in 2008. That IS the release date of the film, even if that was a small release. It was subsequently released in the US in 2009 after the film festivals. Both of those dates should be mentioned in the info box. For the article, the release date should be the initial release, but I think mentioned in the header that it was released in the US in 2009 makes perfect sense. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note I have removed the "reference" that was added to the "2009" in the lead sentence. First off, the link was not working; more importantly, after tracking down the rules in question (Academy Award Rule 2 and 3), they do not verify the year of release for The Hurt Locker. The rules only serve to outline the Academy's requirements for a film, one of which is that it must have a theatrical release in the Los Angeles area during a certain year in order to qualify for that year's awards. The rules specifically outline the conditions under which a film can have prior screenings outside of the United States. Thus, it can debut in Italy in 2008 and still qualify for the 2009 Oscars as long as its first US screening is in 2009. --Ckatz_spy 02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant links, using the 2008 Oscars; the 2009 rules do not appear to be out yet:

--Ckatz_spy 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-open

I am reopening this discussion. The film is clearly a 2008 film. It's first theatrical release was in Italy in 2008. Please see Wikipedia_talk:FILM#Year_of_release that I recently asked the project. Although its first theatrical release in America is 2009, the film is clearly a 2008 film. Also see earth (2007 film) as another example. BOVINEBOY2008 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with treating it as a 2008 film. Variety says in a 2008 article, "The indie pic, which was shot in Jordan and was produced by Shapiro and Nicolas Chartier's Voltage Pictures, goes out in Italy via Warner Bros. on Oct. 10." This is the first public release. I recommend clarifying in the article that while it was released first in Italy in 2008, it opened up to many more locations in 2009. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems very logical. So a sentence like "The film was released in the U.S. on June 26, 2009 in New York and Los Angeles" should be expanded to "The film was first released in the 2008 Venice Film Festival where it was followed by a theatrical release on October 10, 2008. It was then released to the United States on June 26, 2009 in New York and Los Angeles and more internationally throughtout 2009." Something like that? BOVINEBOY2008 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the second thought, there is another way to go about it. 2009 is the year that The Hurt Locker truly made its splash across cinemas despite its premiere in Italy in 2008. Judging from the critical acclaim so far, it will probably be on "best of 2009" lists like the ones at Metacritic. What we could do in the lead section is to leave out the release year in the opening sentence and explain later in the section that it was released in Italy in 2008 and released in many more territories in 2009. We can also keep the 2009 in film category. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but does the release in Italy not count? I am confused at why we are making an exception here. It is clearly first released 2008. I may be wrong, that's just my opinion that we shouldn't ignore a release in an entire country. BOVINEBOY2008 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes with guidelines, exceptions can be made. :) I think that there is an exception here because while it was released publicly in Italy in 2008, the film did not make itself truly known public until 2009. I say this after assessing the current headlines about the film and not finding any English-language headlines about the film showing in Italy circa October 2008. It seems to work best for Misplaced Pages to treat this as "popularly" a 2009 film, but we should recognize in the lead section its 2008 Italian release to offset the big 2009 debut. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense to me. BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So I am restoring link to 2009 in film. Since you guys are in such a "good" mood. I am also restoring page to prior to edit war. Structure was fine. The plot material added in the interim was original and not sourced. It is therefore going and restored with consensus plot that has remained for months. Cast is already listed to the right and mentioned throughout article. Doesn't need another list of them in middle of article. Summit picked up the film at Toronto, so info that it was not picked up there or inferring that there was a problem is missleading. Bovineboy, you are new to contributing to this page, so please do not revert. Same to Ckatz's other buddies like Erik. Thanks. Inurhead (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, we ask you to practice civility and assume good faith of other edits. Since the film is a primary source, a basic description of its events is acceptable; see WP:FILMPLOT. In addition, the infobox should have a shorter list of actors because "Cast" sections are staple sections in many articles. For example, Jeremy Renner and only a few others need to be mentioned. The rest of them can be detailed in the "Cast" section. Lastly, yes, Summit picked it up at Toronto, so I will improve the wording to indicate this. It wasn't structured to imply that it wasn't. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the template {{Fy}} automtically links to ]. It is the same link, just smaller. BOVINEBOY2008 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I ask you to practice the same civility. You have been solicited to take part in an edit war by some recent vandals to this page. They have not made any positive contributions to the page and for some reason are compelled to try to call this film a "2008" film, though they have given absolutely no logical reason for doing so. It doesn't help anybody when vandals maliciously attack a page or start edit wars. So because it is against the very same WP to go around like Ravensfire and Ckatz did and solicit their buddies to delete material on this page, I am reverting back to a slightly older consensus page. If you want to make positive, helpful contributions, then you are welcome, as others have been such as the person who listed all of the Arab-speaking actors. Great contribution! But if you are here merely to join in an edit war. Then "bye-bye." Inurhead (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified WT:FILM of issues of combativeness with content in the article for The Hurt Locker to see what changes they do or do not endorse. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Minor edits

Inurhead, please do not check the Minor Edit box when making significant changes to the article. These, , , , were not minor edits. There's already enough puff in the article, please don't try to hide changes as minor when they clearly aren't. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continues to mark all of his edits as minor. I'm not sure why, and he's offered no explanation for why he's doing this. I normally have my watchlist set to ignore minor edits, but because of his actions, I cannot. Aside from WQA, any suggestions from other users? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a conducive situation, judging from messages on this talk page and from the edit summaries. I am also watching this article now (mainly because of the " in film" skirmish), so what we can do is raise specific issues on this talk page and determine consensus with multiple editors, not just the one. (We can notify WT:FILM for additional opinions.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Undo weight in negative reviews

Rottentomatoes has exactly two less than fresh reviews of this film and the reception section quotes both of them. 71.176.83.157 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Yes. But it has been declared "certified fresh" by RT. Which means that a SUPER MAJORITY OF MAJOR CRITICS have rated the film highly and only two have negatively reviewed. Again, same with Metacritic which has stamped it with the "universally acclaimed" status based on the gathering of scores of major critics. Thus I am restoring "universal acclaim", "award-winning" (because it has "won awards" and because it has been CALLED THAT by news sources) and "certified fresh" status to the article. And I seriously question why certain people on here want to strip the film of its acclaim. Don't you guys have something better to do, like a "birther" argument to attend? Inurhead (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it says "universal acclaim" on MetaCritic doesn't mean it is universally acclaimed; that's just a buzzword within MetaCritic's own rating heirarchy. Likewise, as many users have pointed out, even if these things were true it is still not appropriate to put them in the first sentence of the article; it comes across as non-neutral editing, peacock words, and, worst of all, advertising/promotion. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found over 300 instances of the use of "universally acclaimed" in just one search on Misplaced Pages and almost 14,000 instances of the term "critically acclaimed". I will change to "critically" acclaimed, since that seems to be the preferred majority terminology for whatever reason (despite the fact that Metacritic uses "universal acclaim" as a documented achievement in the compiling of reviews of major critics). I'm going to change it in the article unless someone can explain why facts can't be added to an article. Acclaim is not something that is invented, nor "peacock" when it is real and documented as it is in this article. Inurhead (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Universal" means everyone. Unless you can prove that 100% of people in the world have "acclaimed" this film, it's not appropriate language for an encyclopedia—like I said above, it's just the name of one of the levels in MetaCritic's scale, not an actual description.

As for "critically-acclaimed", language such as "X film has received critical acclaim" is appropriate in the Reception section of the article, but is not necessary in the first sentence. The first sentence is not the place to advertise a film, it's only a place for defining the topic. The basic definition of the topic is not "universal film", it is just 'film'—that is how you define what the article is about, it's about a film.

I have removed your addition because you didn't wait for any comment before making it. Like I said already, do not edit war. You should not be editing this part of the article at all, you should be keeping to the talk page. If you make another controversial edit you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the lede should be kept pretty neutral. And while I agree that this film is getting some exceptionally good reviews, the article shouldn't read like something from a film industry magazine. Starting off the Reception section by saying that it's "critically acclaimed" fits with a more "encyclopedia" type feel, to me. The film has gotten some extremely positive reviews, and I'm thinking that's got to be unusual. There's a pretty good number of quotes from the reviews, but they're mostly about the film. After a while, it starts to look like an advertisement, with a dozen versions of "Film is good". I'm going to see if I can find any comments about the extremely high ratings this film is getting. FT is well over 90% - that's got to be pretty rare!

Here's some of the other areas I think can be improved

Small plot section (the lede is almost as long as the plot!)
Revamp reception section to cut down on number of quotes
Look for additional material about impact of film
Reduce use of "industry" language not in quotes ("Bomb-squad actioner", "A-listers")
Lots of references - do we need that many?
Prune external links

I'll post any changes here before making them if I think there's any chance of disagreement. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my edits

Hello, I wanted to explain the edits I've made to the article so we can discuss them if necessary.

Steve added more details for how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic present their scores because not all readers will be familiar with the websites. We cannot assume that they know how the websites work or that they will go to the websites to learn how they work, so we can take a few extra words to explain this right here, right now.
I separated "Overview" into "Cast" and "Production". This way, we can build up the "Cast" section to have real-world context about the actors and their roles (see Apt Pupil (film)#Cast as an example). Also, "Production" is the typical name for a section covering the background of a film.
Lastly, I removed citations from the lead section because they are unnecessary for the most basic information about the film. Sometimes citations are used in lead sections to back controversial statements, but with this film, there is nothing that can't be already cited in the article body.

Please let me know if there are any issues with my changes! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New change: I renamed "Box office" to "Theatrical run" so it could encompass details about the festival screenings, and I moved the critics' opinions below it in a "Critics" subsection. I also added detail about Venice and Toronto and the public release in Italy. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I merged "Premieres and festival screenings" under the "Release" section. I'm not sure if every festival needs to be mentioned; it's borderline indiscriminate. It may be worth combining them in one sentence, saying, "The Hurt Locker screened at the Zurich Film Festival, the Mar del Plata Film Festival, the Fifth Dubai International Film Festival, etc..." and move on from there. For what it's worth, it would help to clean up the citations so readers can see the works and the publishers for each footnote. For example, you can see the Variety details. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank SoSaysChappy for expanding the "Plot" section. I also ask Inurhead to discuss the changes made by others beside him to the article in recent days. For example, the lead section does not require full-blown citation, and the "Plot" section needed expansion. We can discuss the structure of the film festivals, the theatrical run, and the critical reception, but they were combined under one section since it was related to how outsiders received it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is enough information to split "Release" and "Reception" into to separate sections. If we make "Festival screenings" and "Theatrical run" subsections of a Release section and then "Critical reception" and "Awards and honors" to Reception, navigation and reading of the article would be slightly easier. It would really be a minor change. BOVINEBOY2008 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of these changes are positive. The new structure is not as good as the old one and is clearly just an attempt to join in an edit war, which you all were asked not to do. Because you were all asked not to and because most of you were solicited by others to come here and edit war, I'm reverting back to an older consensus version that also doesn't have the bad unsourced plot material and the non-consequential, non-improvements to the structure. Also the analytical "math" that was maliciously added to over-explain Metacritic is not suited to this page. It should just list Metacritic and RT's numbers with the links to both of those pages as it did before, where people can discover the "engineering" or "math" behind those numbers on their own by clicking on the links. It is not up to this page to explain or analyze Metacritic and RT's sampling procedures. I think you guys know that it slows down the readability of the article to over-explain things like that. It is also an attempt to obfuscate the subtext of the new "contributions" during this edit war, which are really just deletions in disguise (in an attempt to take the film down a peg). I'm restoring the "universally-acclaimed" and "certified fresh" status the cumulative reviews represent as other films have these listed on their pages. This was on the page previously, and is something which has been constantly reverted by several vandals here who don't want to accept the fact that this film has been "universally" well-received and "critically-acclaimed." No, Ckatz, that doesn't mean that every single person loved it (which is an impossibile high bar for ANY film, and one by Ckatz's analysis could never be achieved). There were two negative reviews out of hundreds. What it DOES mean is that MOST critics, and pretty much all major critics from all major newspapers, did like the film. It has a super-majority, in other words. If it were an election, it would be a landslide. Sorry, but that is factual. It should be included in the lead section of the article, per most movie lead sections that are critically-acclaimed films. It is also likely that this film will be nominated for Academy Awards (per many critics, including Roger Ebert). I'm going to restore Ebert's comments about that, since somehow, someone deleted them at some point... Inurhead (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith of other editors' contributions. The article needed work, so I contributed to it. If you want, we can discuss why the re-structuring is not as good. Also, film articles have "Plot" sections that do not need to be sourced; please read WP:FILMPLOT. The Featured Article on a fictional work, To Kill a Mockingbird, does not source it because all the information is already there in the infobox. Same with this film.

Additionally, Steve first added the explanations for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and he's an editor in good standing that was trying to make an improvement. I agree with the need to explain it because the way Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic give their figures are not common knowledge. It's more direct than using the slang the websites use such as "Certified Fresh". I'm not sure why you're directing most of your message to Ckatz; he hasn't been involved recently. I do agree about this film being very critically acclaimed, but we need to see if critics judge it as a "perfect" film or just "very good". The lead section can definitely mention the critical acclaim, but we do not need to do it in the lead sentence. You're bringing up a lot of specific issues, and I suggest that we pick one and discuss each one, knocking each one off a mental checklist. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a comment about the plot summary, since it is the only part of this article I've had a hand in editing... Per WP:FILMPLOT, the film itself is the source (as mentioned in the post above). The movie is now widely available for viewing and no longer needs just a brief overview depending on secondary sources. For anyone who has seen this movie, I would certainly welcome anyone to correct any errors I may have made. If there is anything in the plot summary that is potentially up for dispute, please point it out. If there is, I will remove and re-word it until I can find a source to verify any such material. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Inurhead|Inurhead was blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Regardless, I ask other editors to review the different arguments made about style and content. For example, Inurhead said that the very short plot summary was an agreement between him and Ckatz. Was this before the film was available to the public? Since the film is in public release, we do not have to be constrained by secondary sources. Like SoSaysChappy said, he reiterated the plot to the best of his memory and is willing to revise any mistakes he may have made. We may also need a new discussion about how to write about how the film was critically acclaimed to ensure that we have due weight (like whether or not any negative reviews should be included). It's one of those days, so I'm going to take a break from this article and let others discuss how the article can be improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reviews have been positive. A very small minority of reviews on RT and MC indicate a negative response. Now...per WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". I'm not for leaving out a few sentences describing why it got a rare negative review here or there; including such info would help the reader understand why these critics' opinions differed so much from the norm. It's about differing opinions on a film, not as minimally divisive as, say, the "flat earth" theory that WP:UNDUE likes to use as an example...so go ahead and include a brief description of the negative reviews. But, like I said, a few sentences only. The content of the critical reception section should be somewhat proportional the 90-some-odd percentage of praise the film has received, and the tiny bit of negative/mixed criticism. I'm not trying to be a biased or a "shill"...just simply reflecting the facts. Of course, any further discussion may change my mind.
In defense of the current plot summary, there's really nothing I can say that hasn't been said already. It adheres to WP:FILMPLOT (as far as I can tell), so I don't see why it's necessary to revert it back to the short version (unless its stated in the above-mentioned agreement, which I can't find on this talk page or elsewhere).
As for the cast listing in the infobox... I agree with Erik, it needs to be shortened. Of course, I would include the three main protags (Renner, Mackie and Geraghty). Here's where I'm on the fence... whether or not to include Fiennes, Pearce, and Morse. They are three high-profile actors who each have cameo roles in the film. Should they stay or go? I would leave out Lilly, Camargo, and Sayegh, but include them in the cast section (they each play small but important roles in the movie, and while Sayegh isn't billed very high, his character is described in the plot summary). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. Misplaced Pages's coverage of works of fiction should be about a more than just the plot. Overly long and thorough plot summaries are also hard to read. The plot needs to be concise. I'm restoring an older, more concise plot with references that doesn't contain original writing and which isn't overly long and which doesn't include dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns such as the one that is posted now. Inurhead (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

James's rank?

Anyone know a good site that can verify James's exact rank? He's called everything from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant to Sergeant First Class (E5 thru E7) on pages all over the internet. From my memory, he's simply called "Sergeant" in the film, but I'm not sure whether or not the Army might still refer to an E6 or E7 simply as "Sergeant". If there are conflicting sources that verify conflicting ranks of the character, would it be best to just go by how many chevrons appear on the insignia of his uniform (in which case, we would need multiple confirmations from several reliable viewers/editors)? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

His insignia throughout the film consistently corroborates Sergeant First Class (E-7), as the article claims. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Small revamp of the Reception section

Something that's always kinda bugged me about the article is the reception/review section. It reads more like an ad for the movie than anything else. Some of the quotes just say the same thing, without really adding anything new. Both of the negative reviews also seem to comment on the same thing - a lack of focus in certain places, causing the movie to drag. (Odd - personally I didn't see that when I saw the movie, but to each their own!). So, how do folks think about this revision?

The Hurt Locker has received widespread acclaim from critics. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 98% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 130, with an average score of 8.4 out of 10. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 94 based on 33 reviews. Several reviewers have described it as the best film yet made about the Iraq war.

Reviewing the film for TIME magazine at Venice, film critic Richard Corliss said, "The Hurt Locker is a near-perfect movie about men in war, men at work. Through sturdy imagery and violent action, it says that even Hell needs heroes." Toronto Star critic Peter Howell said, "Just when you think the battle of Iraq war dramas has been fought and lost, along comes one that demands to be seen... If you can sit through The Hurt Locker without your heart nearly pounding through your chest, you must be made of granite." Entertainment Weekly's film critic Lisa Schwarzbaum gave the film the rare "A" rating, calling it, "an intense, action-driven war pic, a muscular, efficient standout that simultaneously conveys the feeling of combat from within as well as what it looks like on the ground. This ain't no war videogame."

The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott wrote of the film, "The Hurt Locker is the best nondocumentary American feature made yet about the war in Iraq... You may emerge from “The Hurt Locker” shaken, exhilarated and drained, but you will also be thinking." Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal called it, "A first-rate action thriller, a vivid evocation of urban warfare in Iraq, a penetrating study of heroism and a showcase for austere technique, terse writing and a trio of brilliant performances." Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times gave it four stars stating, "The Hurt Locker represents a return to strong, exciting narrative. Here is a film about a bomb disposal expert that depends on character, dialogue and situation to develop almost unbearable suspense... Staff Sgt. James is played by Jeremy Renner, who immediately goes on the short list for an Oscar nomination. His performance is not built on complex speeches but on a visceral projection of who this man is and what he feels."

Some of the few critical comments on the film have been about a lack of focus in some parts of the movie. Variety's Derek Elley comments "war may be hell, but watching war movies can also be hell, especially when they don't get to the point." Kyle Smith of the New York Post said "Despite its pumped-up admiration for our troops and some scenes that spurt adrenaline like a fire hose, this sort-of-thriller about a bomb squad working in 2004 is stretched both timewise and for plausibility."

Combined the two negative reviews into a single paragraph, and highlight that they seem to be talking about the same thing. I also pulled out the quote from the LA Times and the second Variety reviewer. Thoughts? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We can go further than this. It is easy to say that critics across the board have loved the film, and a lot of these quotes tend to repeat this acclaim in different forms. When I write "Reception" sections, I try to write why critics loved the film. For example, Time's Richard Corliss is quoted pretty broadly, though "sturdy imagery" is a good specific detail. I looked at his review, and here's a better specific quote about why the film works for him: "He's ordinary, pudgy-faced, quiet, and at first seems to lack the screen charisma to carry a film. That supposition vanishes in a few minutes, as Renner slowly reveals the strength, confidence and unpredictability of a young Russell Crowe. The merging of actor and character is one of the big things to love about this movie." If we could work that in instead, that would have more weight, in my opinion. Repeat for the other reviewers. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I noticed in earlier revisions that many reviews were removed because one editor apparently disliked the view point of the critic. Have those since been restored or reevaluated from a more neutral stance to see if they should be restored? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Which review was it? I may tackle the reception section next to reflect what critics specifically liked about the film, if there is no issue with that approach. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The one from the New York Post which was removed with a note of "Omit neg POST review which is a sexist attack on film's director, quote is not complete anyway, film is universally acclaimed and Elley review already reps the small % neg reviews". And Film Threat's review which was apparently removed as a "lesser known critic" Those were the two I could find in all the mess happening from the first week in August. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Inurhead about the reviews based on what I've read about this film. It's been extremely critically acclaimed, so reading the policy on undue weight ("...generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"), we should have one or no negative review. In a way, this is why I prefer to quote parts of reviews that show why a critic liked it, as opposed to "great film", "amazing film", etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree on quoting their comments on why the liked it. For excluding all negative reviews, though, I'm not sure...per undue, I think having a section of negative reviews would certainly be inappropriate, but I'm also concerned that there may be other reviews that had negative remarks that have been left out and should be considered. I also think that not mentioning them at all, gives a false impression that it absolutely no one disliked the film, when it is clear that at least some critics did. While Film Threat is a smaller review (though RT does use it in its rotten calculations), the New York Post review seems to have at least some value and Variety also apparently gave it a primarily negative review. Several other reviewers gave it mostly positive reviews, but did have aspects they disliked as well (Salon.com, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Chicago Tribune, etc). I just want to make sure that neutrality is reinstated and that these views are not overly minimized (while also not being overly emphasized). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Festival screenings

Since the article has been a battleground lately, I will explain my newest edits. I compressed the mention of The Hurt Locker receiving the SIGNIS award because the award was not very significant in the press (hence why I deferred to the official website). We can save specific comments on the film for the critics' section. Also, the citation for the other three awards at Venice did not mention them. I assume the citation is an expired one since there are mentions of these other awards elsewhere, but I'm having trouble finding a good RS to use. Help, anyone?

Also, I'm trying to compress mention of the film festivals to mention them one by one. The big ones were Venice and Toronto, really... the other ones, with the exception of Dallas, don't seem important. I didn't want to remove the festivals in their entirety, though... do people think it's worth identifying each one or having a collective statement, such as, "The Hurt Locker screened at several festivals in 2008 and 2009 before its public release"? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not need the total restructuring that you are doing to it. I find your restructuring during the "edit war" to be malicious. Please stop and go work on some other film article. I believe you said that you haven't even seen this film. Again, I rest my case. I am restoring the article to prior to the edit war. Inurhead (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)