Talk:Remember Me (2010 film)

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

Filming[edit]

Filming started in New York City, New York, sometime in June, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.101.225 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler[edit]

Woah - can we get a spoiler alert in the plot? That description is the definition of spoiler! 69.155.81.246 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SW. Petitscel (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Spoiler!! Some plots are complete walkthoughs of a movie so spoilers are not an issue. However this plot is just a summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.115.146 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see WP:SW. It clearly states that spoilers should not be removed from articles simply because they are spoilers, and gives reasons for this. Petitscel (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! someone came to an enclypedia article about a movie and there were spoilers?? Lacks! whatever next.--121.73.246.11 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie poster[edit]

It has been released, I would put it up but i don't know how. It can be found at http://justjared jr.buzznet.com/2009/12/01/robert-pattinson-remember-me-poster/ (remove the space) Miss money (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't assume that it is the official poster as that website is currently blacklisted. If a new poster has been released, it will appear on other sites soon. We'll watch out for it. Thanks ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 19:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to image to Remember Me international.jpg. Although the language on the poster is in foreign, it is currently the most up to date poster. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar to the one at http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/12/01/robert-pattinson-remember-me-poster/ which contains the writing in English, except the site is blacklisted and the picture is very poor quality ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. — ξxplicit 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Me (2010 film) → Remember Me (film) — There are two articles about films called Remember Me. As a star-studded, heavily-promoted, wide-release drama, it seems more likely that users will be seeking information about this film rather than a 1979 documentary short. Propaniac (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before expressing an opinion on this move, please review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the guideline stating that the only criteria here is which film is more likely to be sought by users. Propaniac (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Per rationale. (2010 film) has received 72,634 this year so far whereas (film) has only received 3,067. Luckily most of our searchers are smart enough to know that for some reason, the most popular topic will have the most disambiguated title. Template:Scarce signature. 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose[reply]
  • Oppose At least one other film with this title. Remember Me (film) is ambigious and should redirect to the disambig page. See also naming conventions for films. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does give a new perspective but (1979 film) needs to be expanded or go through an AFD as it currently tells very little about the documentary. For instance, what is the documentary about? Template:Scarce signature. 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to decide which is the more notable. Agree that most people will be looking for the 2010 film, but that's irrelevant. Many of these readers may be interested to note in passing that the name is not unique, and we have no way of knowing either way. WP:NCF is quite clear that the disambiguator should include the date where necessary, as here. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS The 1979 film received one Academy Award nomination, so AFD would be a waste of everyone's time IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well at least expanded! Template:Scarce signature. 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And an article on the 1997 film by the same name might even be appropriate, if it's sufficiently notable, looks like it may be, see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120006/ for IMDB. And the DAB at Remember Me needs work too. But I still say that AFDing an Academy Award nominated film isn't likely to improve Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your bizarre interpretation that I have suggested deleting the article on the 1979 film indicates how badly you have apparently misunderstood this situation. I have never suggested that that article should be deleted; it will presumably remain at Remember Me (1979 film), which is clearly listed on the disambiguation page. If the 2010 film moves to Remember Me (film), there will be a WP:HATNOTE placed on the page to direct users looking for the 1979 film article. Propaniac (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very puzzled by this post. AFD was suggested above, but not by you and I never meant to imply that it was, nor rereading do I see any hint of such an inference. Apologies if my post was unclear, is it clear now? Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With three films with the same title, (film) should continue to redirect to the disambiguation. Template:Scarce signature. 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three oppose votes above seem to be based on massive misunderstandings. First of all, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which I suppose I should have cited in my nomination) is very clear that the only thing that matters is which film users are most likely to be looking for. Yes, there is a 1979 film by this title -- I specifically said so in my nomination, and linked to that film. If a third film exists, but there is no information about it on Wikipedia, then it doesn't matter for purposes of disambiguation, which is what we're talking about here. Even if an article is created for the third film, is there any argument that users would be more likely to be looking for that film than this one? And the idea that we should needlessly send users through a disambiguation page despite knowing which topic 99% of them are looking for, out of the idea that they "may be interested" to know that other, completely unrelated films exist with the same title, goes completely against the very idea of disambiguation, which is to get users to the article they are looking for as quickly and efficiently as possible. Propaniac (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Have you fancied commenting on the BLP RFC.... Lugnuts (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that disambiguation is useless? That doesn't make your perspective appear any less ignorant. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propaniac (talk • contribs) [reply]
If you've read the discussion properly, you'll see I support the disambig option. Idiot. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you support sending users to a disambiguation page for no reason. Disambiguation is not about forcing users to review lists of links. As I said, it's about helping users reach the article they're looking for, and in this case, it's very clear which article users are likely to be looking for. (But that name-calling is just making you look smarter and smarter, isn't it?) Propaniac (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the average internet user is going to search for Remember Me (film) over Remember Me and hope they go to the film, as it's the current flavour of the month? The correct answer is no, BTW. Lugnuts (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hell? Are you suggesting that a user who searches for Remember Me (film) would expect to go to an article about something other than a film? Or that nobody would ever search for that title? That's ridiculous for so many reasons. Propaniac (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you should have a serious read of WP:no personal attacks, and I do mean read not skim. It's a lot broader in scope, and more helpful, than many think, and focusses on what you should do rather than what you shouldn't. Andrewa (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Remember Me and move Remember Me to Remember Me (disambiguation). Not only is this the obvious primary topic between the two films, but it's the primary use of Remember Me as an article title. This article has been getting 56,000-81,000 pageviews per month since November, far more than all other articles titled Remember Me combined. Station1 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For films we disambig. by year. Also Oppose making the 2010 film the primary topic. I think there is enough article divergence that a primary topic move would be inappropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others' arguments. After the primary topic or the primary disambiguation page, there is no additional hierarchy. Except for when a film is a primary topic, films that share the same title are equal in article naming. Erik (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit protected[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone please edit the plot? There is no reason to have huge spoilers for the end of a movie in the plot outline, in particular with no spoiler alert. The last couple of sentences of the plot can safely be removed, in order to get rid of the spoiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.221.96 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per WP:SPOILER. --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception section[edit]

This appears to be getting a little long and seems to include too many reviews. The Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) page, for example, only lists four reviews, two positive and two negative. I don't think we need this many reviews to illustrate critics' general impression of the film. Would anyone be opposed to me pruning this section down to make it easier to get a general idea of what critics thought? I think two positive/two negative should suffice. Petitscel (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the repetitive ones, but I left in Kirk Honeycutt because it's very descriptive and I also left in Roger Ebert as he is the most notable reviewer in the section and is also descriptive in his review. I also left in Lisa Schwarzbaum's because she's very short and to the point with the review and sums up what the negative reviews that were removed said. Jake Coyle's is also very descriptive and especially critical to Pattinson's performance, his review is also almost mixed. I've also reordered them so the reader can go from and extremely positive review to an extremely negative one. –Scarce ✉ 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the length was that bad; it was at a comfortable length. However, I dislike one-sentence samples of reviews, which feels very disjointed. I think it's better to write 2-3 sentences from about 5-7 reviews. Erik (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, go ahead. –Scarce ✉ 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not interested enough in this film to follow through. :) The trim is fine for now, though I'm sure it will grow again. Erik (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha... yeah, that's what I expected. I'll let it be until some new editors come and have their way with it. –Scarce ✉ 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Scarce! That's pretty much exactly what I'd envisioned doing to the section, so thanks for saving me the work :) Petitscel (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Films based on September 11, 2001" category[edit]

I'm not sure this category is applicable, as the film is not based on the attacks, really. They're just used in the last few minutes of the film to kill a character. I see from the history of the article that this category has been added/removed before, so I just wanted to see if anyone had strong feelings one way or the other. Petitscel (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box office[edit]

Reports are saying Remember Me made 45.7 million WORLDWIDE. Please update this info. http://www.theimproper.com/?p=6074 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.173.139 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the improper a reliable source? I don't think so. Mojo is the most reliable source ALWAYS TbhotchTalk C. 21:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because Box Office Mojo is not updated yet; international figures are still being gathered. Another website is The Numbers, which says $45.7 million (with int'l figures being estimated for now). When the film is done with its theatrical run, the figures will be finalized anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to this, the movie revenue over 45 million (its source is Mojo), but the page is update every day here. TbhotchTalk C. 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Remember_Me_(2010_film)&oldid=1210010732"