Talk:B.E.D. (film)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on B-E-D. 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/20140328042708/http://www.mline-distribution.com/lineup.php?idx=124 to http://www.mline-distribution.com/lineup.php?idx=124

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) 01:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to B.E.D. (film). There is definitely consensus for a move, and of the options available this one seems to be preferred.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Bed (film) → ? – Artice was last moved to its current title in 2017 on the basis that it is "not an acronym", however promotional blurb suggests otherwise [1]. External sites tend to use "B.E.D" (no period at the end) [2] or "B.E.D." (with a period) [3][4][5], though the film poster and dvd cover appear to omit the periods altogether, i.e. "BED" [6]. I can find little usage of the uncapitalised form "Bed". Options are therefore B.E.D (film), B.E.D. (film), or BED (film). PC78 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move to B.E.D. (film) per the above and sources cited in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the cover of the Korean video and poster clearly says "bed". It's pronounced "bed" not "Bee-ee-dee". It's simply a stylism that's appeared in some Korean text. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Did you bother to look at any of the links above? Here are some more for "B.E.D" on film posters & festival screenings: [7], [8], [9]. "Bed" appears to be a variation invented by you and not used elsewhere. PC78 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: how would you read 베드 ? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

With difficulty. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:In ictu oculi. Your question is an heavily loaded one: a native will rather read, a foreigner will rather spell. Thus a Korean will rather read 베드 as "bed", while a non-Korean will rather spell 베드 as "bay·deuh", or as "bee.ay=bay, dee.euh=deuh, thus bay.deuh ?" or even as "this Sejong pretended it was easy". On the other hand, while a non-Korean will rather read bed as "bed" (not a real surprise), a large number of Koreans would rather spell bed as 비읍·ㅔ·디귿 = 베드. Do you really think that Park Chul-soo could have ignored such an obvious factoid ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. For those who have problem with hangul and its typesetting, 베드 means indeed bed, but is used here as a joke to be read as B·E·D, i.e. something like $B+E+D$: we have a B, we have a E, we have a D and these three people interact. This seems to be the reason why reliable sources, and the posters themselves, are using B·E·D rather than "bed" or "B.E.D." or what else. Pldx1 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2019‎ (UTC)

Moreover, the article should be checked for copyvios...
(moreover)^2, the summary seems to be written from pre-release advertisements rather than after having seen the movie. Pldx1 (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This comment was initially titled 'Move', but should have say move to what. A better !vote will be given below. Pldx1 (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move to B.E.D. (film) per the nom and sources cited in the article also film poster. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. also film poster. Film poster says B·E·D (this way) and not what you are saying. Like it or not, but User:In ictu oculi was right when saying: this is not an acronym. This was not a word (bed) either, but this is another story. Pldx1 (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Which posters are you looking at? Because the ones I linked above all use full stops rather than mid dots. If anything I would say the title is a backronym; the MOS doesn't appear to offer any guidance but I see no reason why they shouldn't be treated the same as other acronyms. PC78 (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Its a real shame to have such a long discussion about the title when the article itself is in such a pitiful shape. The movie is not about the adventures of a mattress when carried atop of an Hyundai pickup. At least, this is not the central focus, so that the key topic is not bed. On the contrary, the movie is about the interactions of three people, named B, E and D. Henceforward the title has to be B·E·D (this way, and not otherwise). Concerning the "sources" you are using for promoting B.E.D. (acronymously) the simple fact they are using exactly the same summary discard them as sources independent from each other. May be they were so lazy to simply write down the wp:en article! On the contrary, all the four sources given as sources used to write the wp:en article, namely:

1. Blair, Gavin J. (7 October 2012). "Busan 2012: 'B•E•D' Pushes the Envelope With Oft-Nude Cast". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2019-03-28.
2. "B·E·D". BIFF.kr. Retrieved 2013-02-23.

   this page has been relocated at: "B·E·D". BIFF.kr. Retrieved 2019-03-29. (comment added by Pldx1 (talk), at 10:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

3. Conran, Pierce (8 October 2012). "BIFF 2012: Park Chul-soo's B·E·D (2012)". Modern Korean Cinema. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
4. "B.E.D". M-LINE Distribution. Archived from the original on 2014-03-28. Retrieved 2013-02-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

are using... guess what ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First link, if you look at the photo it has a poster in the background which used full stops in the film title. Second link doesn't work. Fourth link clearly uses full stops in both the poster and the text. The links I posted above are all different and independent of each other. PC78 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

thumb|250px|right|Do You See The Null Dot After the D ?

• Move to B·E·D (film) and use all the others as redirects. The BIFF source was obvious to fix (a page move). That it was not corrected in the article is another indice of the pitiful state of the said article. Moreover, B·E·D at the Korean Movie Database (in Korean), B.E.D. at IMDb and B·E·D at HanCinema where misrepresented as "bed" due to a lack of care when moving the B.E.D. page to the bed title: there is a default value, inferred from the page's name (this is now corrected). Concerning the use of B.E.D. by IMDb, the personal opinion of an Anonymous who has only copied his summary from somewhere else (without attribution)... doesn't appear as a Great Reliable Source! Otherwise, any other source uses a Null_Dot after the D of the B·E·D name. Proposing to use U+318D ㆍ HANGUL LETTER ARAEA rather than U+00B7 · MIDDLE DOT (·, ·, ·) i.e. BㆍEㆍD instead of B·E·D would be slightly pedantic (and of low chances of success)! But using B.E.D. would simply be a lack of care we don't have an acronym here, but an accretion. Pldx1 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, any summary that doesn't underline the meaning of the sentence B, whose life [...] ends on the bed should be discarded as written by someone who, provably, has not seen the movie. Pldx1 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean that image you've posted quite literally shows "B.E.D" and not "B·E·D" as you keep asserting. I don't care much whether or not we add a dot to the end or not, but if that's what most reliable sources are using then it's probably what we should be using too. PC78 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move to B.E.D. (film). Current title is blatant WP:OR (unsurprising). Move to B.E.D. as "standard English" as B·E·D is untypable (it is WALL-E, not WALL·E). Also, redirect all the alternatives to the desired title. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support B.E.D. (film) per above. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Politically correct version of the picture
Do You See The Null Dot After the D ?

• Comment. Yet another great occurrence of f.u.c.k the sources, I have a M·O·S argument. But I don't see how "WALL·E was M·O·S-sified into WALL-E" could result into "B·E·D should be M·O·S-sified into B.E.D." rather than into B-E-D. Moreover, saying "per above" when above was a detailed list of sources proving that the title is not an acronym seems strange. The movie is about B+E+D, not about British Empire Devolution or whatever other B.E.D. you could invent. Pldx1 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, why are you still arguing for mid dots when the image you post clearly shows full stops? PC78 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Dear User:PC78. I am arguing about two points. (1) all RS are using two dots ; (2) quite all sources are using mid dots. How this applies to the reference Blair, Gavin J. (7 October 2012). "Busan 2012: 'B•E•D' Pushes the Envelope With Oft-Nude Cast". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2019-03-28. ? Really simple: (1) everywhere, we have two dots, in the title, in the text, and even in the picture that can be seen in the background. Because this is not an acronym. (2) there are 3 times B•E•D (title + text), and only one B.E.D (the background picture). Obviously, whatever solution is chosen, all possibilities must remain as redirects, so that arguing about typable/untypable is not convincing. In any case, it would be great if you could give two distinct answers to the two distinct questions. Pldx1 (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Both of your statements are demonstrably untrue, as can be seen from the links that have been posted. Not all RSs are using two dots (here's another one I don't think has been posted yet), and most of them do not use mid dots, there is a mix of different styles used. You have made your preference clear and that is fine, I have expressed no clear preference for any title (except that it should not be the current one). What I don't understand is why you keep referring to the film posters for their use of two dots while willfully ignoring the fact that they use full stops rather than mid dots. Feel free to answer or not, either way I'm not sure I have anything further to add to this discussion. PC78 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
        • This source proves exactly nothing, not pro, nor con. Gala Presentations include world premieres of Mohsen Makhmalbaf’s The Gardener – an Asian Cinema Fund (ACF) recipient film which the Iranian director shot in Israel; Chung Ji-young’s National Security; Jeon Soo-il’s El Condor Pasa, and Park Chul-soo’s B.E.D. Hur Jin-ho’s Dangerous Liaisons is set to add star power with actresses Zhang Ziyi and Cecilia Cheung to attend with actor Jang Dong-gun. You can read it as B.E.D followed by an end of sentence dot ; or as B.E.D. followed by an end of sentence dot, the two dots being collapsed into only one dot. Moreover, this newspaper says nothing else about the movie except from this lonely sentence. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.