Talk:Burn After Reading
Latest comment: 7 days ago by Barte in topic Critical response section too long?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burn After Reading article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1095 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2020. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2020)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Another error in the plot summary?
editThe plot summary states: "Harry realizes that he is being tailed by a divorce lawyer hired by his wife. Depressed, Harry meets with Linda ..." Surely the private eye whom Harry spots, chases and wrestles to the ground, thought he was tailing Osbourne Cox, but Harry had moved into Osbourne's house, and he was tailing Harry by mistake! Harry's wife was not suing for divorce; Katie Cox was! That mix-up is one of the many mix-up jokes. Arrivisto (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Brilliant observation! Too tired to edit it in tonight IM Serious (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- On second thought, i think Harry was the proper target because the detective had been spying long enough to know who he was after and Harry's wife had her secret affair who she might have been trying to legitimize: IM Serious (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The New Republic "opinion"
editJeet Heer's evaluation has no place in this article. 2603:8080:1600:F9CD:A59E:7779:3DE1:AC43 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because you disagree with it? Because you think The New Republic is not a valid source? Your comment here consists of a single sentence with zero specifics to back up your argument. That's not enough. Barte (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's been the same IP that has tried to exclude this, but I tend to agree. I have no opinion on Jeet Heer or The New Republic, but I don't see what his observation a decade later that couldn't have anything to do with the film when it came out has to do with the film. Should we add information to Jaws about current great white shark stories? --Onorem (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've restored it because as I said in my edit summary, it's no more of a "random observation" than the other opinions cited in the "Critical response" section, which should reflect a range of views, and it been in the article since 2017, added with: this edit, so if anyone wants to remove it, they need to seek consensus here. Carlstak (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's more random because it's not a critical response to the film. The actual critical responses to the film were giving critical responses to the film. Jeet Heer was opining on how he thought what was happening a decade later reminded him of the film. Do you see the difference? Perhaps a legacy section like Idiocracy has would be better, but I don't really like that either (for either article.) --Onorem (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Critical response section too long?
editPer the tag. I don't agree: given the film's long staying power and part of the Coen's work, the length seems fine to me and proportional to the rest of the article. MOS:FILMCRITICS gives no length recommendations. No rationale given here either. Barte (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- There being no objections, I've removed the tag. Barte (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)