Talk:Contracted (film)

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

'Committing' necrophilia?[edit]

I feel like this phrasing passes judgement on necrophilia than approaching it encyclopædically; that said, I've not the greatest grasp of English, so I'll hold off from editing for now. Does one, from a purely linguistic point-of-view, 'commit' necrophilia? 199.119.245.146 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was a difficult synopsis to write. Much of the film up to the viewer's interpretation; for example, the word "rape" is never actually spoken once in the film (to the best of my recollection). That's why I danced around the description of certain events. I didn't want to force my interpretation of the events. I will admit that I did not even consider that someone would choose this part of the synopsis to discuss. I have no objection with softening this language. In fact, one of the later paragraphs has been bothering me for a while now, I think I'll try to soften that one, too, as it includes more interpretative prose than I think is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in lead[edit]

An IP editor has twice replaced "rape" with "casual sex" in the lead. I think this is because the film's marketing portrays it as casual sex. I added a citation to the Twitch Film review that addresses this situation. If this continues to be an issue (so far, it seems to just be one editor), we can explain this in the lead, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. This isn't a long article, and readers only have to scroll down a little bit before they see a discussion on it. Still, if someone wants to add a note in the lead (or an HTML comment), that'd be fine with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in a little late, but I do have to agree with NinjaRobotPirate's good faith assessment of the situation. I know when I originally created the article I used the term "one night stand" a few times (and subsequently got chewed out as perpetuating stigmatization of rape victims and being culturally backwards). The reason for this is that the director himself was more than a little coy about everything when describing the film in various media outlets. I somewhat recommend adding this to the lead, as it might end up that more than a few people make that same good faith mistake and try to fix it. It also looks like Something Awful heavily criticized how the rape was depicted in the film, so there might be a potential section in the article for the film's usage of rape and the marketing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and added it to the lead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so director says it was a one night stand and some review site says it was a rape. The article is written as if twitch view was right and the film directors view was wrong, which violates neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. I am adding an appropriate warning till this is solved --Nomad (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This POV tag seems silly. The review criticizes the film's marketing, which is what labeled it as a one-night stand, not the director. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rape in the movie[edit]

Movie information: "A young girl has a one-night stand with a random stranger and contracts, what she thinks is, a sexually-transmitted disease - but is actually something much worse." 87.78.137.17 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I posted about that right above this. We have a reliable source that labels it as such and discusses the issue. See the reception section. If you'd like, we can expand the lead to cover this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should present a so called rape as an opinion of one source, not as a fact. Judging by what director says, it was at least intended to be a one night stand. Just because somebody called it rape doesn't mean it was a rape. As a matter of fact the word rape was never spoken in the movie, the protagonist never acted or spoke as if she was raped, only as if she had a one night stand. It seems to me some review website was trying to see more into the film than there actually was. For example, another review says nothing about alleged rape. --Nomad (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guy put roofies in her drink and then had sex with her while she was passed out. That is rape. No need to go into opinions.