Talk:Man Bites Dog (film)

Title change recommended

This article is better named Man Bites Dog (film). The phrase Man Bites Dog itself refers primarily to news media and journalists who report unusual stories, as opposed to the usual Dog Bites Man-type stories. If there are no objections, I'll move the article to the new title in a day. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The baby's pacifier

I corected the trivia. The baby's pacifier was already changed for the french release. In an interview in the french magasin "première", the director explain that it's because probably because French find quite moral to kill ederly people. madlozoz

Intro needs improvement

The first two sentences of the intro need improvement, imo. The first sentence has an overkill of terms and information ("a satirical 1992 Belgian French language black comedy mockumentary"). The second sentence doesn't read very well: "It has the dubious honor of being the film permitted in the United States that has been banned in the greatest number of non-U.S. countries." And why is it relevant enough to be mentioned that far up in the intro? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line telling that Tarantino liked the movie. It probably shouldn't be mentioned at all, but it certainly shouldn't be in the opening. It may be relevant in Tarantino's own article, but he is not an expert (i.e.: a film critic,) so his opinion has bo place here.Smw543 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This Makes No Sense

"This film had been rated NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America for strong graphic violence, but the rating was later overturned. It is currently NC-17 in the United States."

What? 64.136.218.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Man Bites Dog - censored poster.jpg

Image:Man Bites Dog - censored poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sympathetic protagonist?

I think that unless documented from a valid source, this line should be removed from the synopsis. I would personally argue that the protagonist is wholly unlikeable, selfish, and sociopathic, yet this assessment belongs in the entry as much as the current assessment does: not at all. It would be great to expand the entry to include critical interpretation and response, but it doesn't belong there. I'll be removing this shortly unless a moderator tells me otherwise.RHarnden86 (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Digestive Tract"

I've tried to amend the article twice now, each time a reversion has occurred due to supposed vandalism. There is a point in the movie where a character is murdered by having a flute inserted violently into their anus. The plot description as it stands states that the flute was inserted into the "digestive tract," which is a rather generalized term that could mean anus, mouth, or even through the abdomen. My edit clarifies this by replacing the term "digestive tract" with "anus." I'm not going to bother changing it a 3rd time, as it will likely be reverted arbitrarily again, but if an administrator or someone with the ability to tell whatever program automatically identifies so-called vandalism that it's a legitimate edit could manage, it'd be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.7.56 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man Bites Dog (film). 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/20120209130519/http://www.benoitpoelvoorde.be/capdcv.htm to http://www.benoitpoelvoorde.be/capdcv.htm

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) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)