Talk:Mark Kermode/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article or section does not cite any references or sources.

Just about everything on the main pain (at the time of writing) has been said on his radio show - try listening sometime. IceHunter 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, what is one supposed to do when the only way of providing sources is by having readers listen to (copyrighted and non-downloadable) audio files? --Emc² • contact me 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kermode's Religious beliefs

During his radio review of "March of the Penguins", I remembering him talking about a tendency towards belief in Intelligent Design. This sparked some intense e-mail debate. I may I still have the podcast mp3 if that can be cited as a reference. I also remember hearing him refer to himself as a committed christian, though this may have been some other time, perhaps on TV. --BN701 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He often talks about his religious beliefs on his show. I think he is a methodist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know he was brought up as a Methodist, but became something else (possibly an atheist) when he grew up. Somebody should ask him when he's on the show. Emc² • contact me 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the uncertainty on this issue, and the existing content of the article (which I have no problem with) I'm rather surprised that he is listed in the Category "English Christians". Until we have a good reference for his beliefs it seems slightly premature. Rachel Pearce (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll remove it right away. Emc² • talk 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In his Jesus Camp review he makes it clear he looks favourably on Methodism and has 'admiration for faith' I think he said, I don't know whether that indicates him as having religious beliefs or not but I think its best to leave it unless something changes. I think he recently said he believes all matter is lucifer retruning to God or something bizarre like that.EchetusXe (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He has described himself as a 'lapsed methodist' on the podcast, which essentially means he's not a practicing Christian. However given his views on intelligent design, it's pretty clear he holds some theistic beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he agrees with intelligent design he seemed to be saying that although right wing Christians are wrong their is something about the penguins that shows the work of god. His view on the subject seemed to be very poorly defined and a bit wishy washy but did stop short of intelligent design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.196 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Channel 4

Why is there no mention of his Channel 4 film introductions? Is this even the same person I'm thinking of? Splink 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is the same person, he's also done a few documentaries (one I recall is about 'The Shawshank Redemption") Msp 23:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Movies praised by Mark Kermode

Does anyone else think this section's a bit pointless? Kevin Boyd (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep - it's completly unsourced for one. I've been bold and removed it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning, but a couple of things come to mind. 1 - Mark Kermode is known for his legendary rants about films he doesn't like, but it shouldn't be ignored that he does actually like some films. 2 - isn't it a bit tricky to cite a radio show? Kermode doesn't seem to do much written reviewing. Andymarczak (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The word 'Kermodian'

Is it too soon to put a reference to this, perhaps under Opinions? There's not much that's a good verifiable source on it, unfortunately, apart from the radio shows themselves and loads of blogs. Jenniscott (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC News

Just how exactly is a film reviewer a frequent contributor to BBC News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.86.175 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say frequent, it says regular. BBC News (channel) does report on major film openings etc. and when it does, Kermode is one of the people they have on to discuss them. He also has a weekly programme called Film 24, which sounds pretty regular to me. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"9/11 Truth Movement"

Some weirdo keeps putting that Kermode is a supporter of the 9/11 'truth movement'. Kermode is not, as witnessed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/apr/09/features.review2 --EchetusXe (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

Is "Kermode" a 'stage name' or has he changed it legally? 81.101.137.82 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's by deed poll. This is now explained in the article. Cordless Larry (talk)

Mark kermode's opinions

The article states that he has a personal liking for all three pirates of the caribbean films. This appears to be a mistake as the Guardian review cited in support of it expresses a very low opinion of the second and first of the series. Mother shipton (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he hates them. The article was recently vandalised and I've restored the original text. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the linked video indicates that MK has a liking for High School Musical - he notes that it's a good formula for making money but that is not, of course, the same thing --Gobbag (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) He does like the first and the third of the high school musical films he's expressed the view a number of times on his podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.196 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

please format the citations

i added some citations, but only as in-line external links. could somebody format them correctly please? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.64.147 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Witch Who Came From the Sea

"though he regards video nasty The Witch Who Came From the Sea as being the most disturbing film of the 1970s."

removed as he never calls it that ( listen to the interview here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20090612-1642b.mp3 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.64.147 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but mentioning the film as part of the video nasty genre in turn as part of the horror section seems appropriate. Adding further detail about his involvement with Last House on the Left may be an idea too. As of today the rewritten reference to ==The Witch Who Came From the Sea== still stands and I think it’s an improvement Jprw (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is he related to Professor Frank Kermode?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.126.225 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not. He's unlikely to be related to any Kermodes since that isn't his family surname. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If Kermode is his mother's maiden name, surely he could be related to hundreds of them? Including, but not limited to, his mother of course... JohnB57 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I obviously didn't think that through. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not. I've just added a ref for that from The Times in Jan 2010. Qwfp (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Bride Wars Challenge

Is the material about Kermode's Bride Wars Challenge really necessary? Seems like something that belongs on a blog rather than a Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove it since there has been no support for its inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning as it was quite a big deal and he was apparently entirely genuine about it, but I would maybe just put a line or two about it rather than the gigantic paragraph that you removed. Now that the whole thing is over with it can be neatly summarized and left at that I think.78.147.8.8 (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Top Ten Movies 2009

Where would be the best place to add this information, if at all.

The information is from his podcast http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20100101-1500a.mp3

10. White Lightnin'
9. A Serious Man
8. Gran Torino
7. Helen
6. Moon
5. Anti Christ
4. White Ribbon
3. Anvil
2. Slumdog Millionaire
1. Let The Right One In

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHamburger (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

25 years of film criticism

Kermode says so himself here [1] which would make him doing criticism in 1985 aged 22. Where would he have been doing film criticism then? University newspaper?

PS Some Oscar tips for those gamblers among you - and remember to use an accumulator :) 81.156.124.198 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Are a film critic's favorite films notable?

I am happy to do what Tenebrae (talk · contribs) should have done, which is start a topic about possibly removing a properly referenced and notable detail from this article, a short list present in the article for at least a year. I am returning the list to the article while Tenebrae makes the case for its removal. 72.244.204.167 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We have to make the case for inserting material in the first place. This material is trivia and self-aggrandizing: Since this IP address has no other contributions than to this article and only today, it's fair to wonder who this editor is and why the sudden interest in this particular individual, and whether this is Kermode himself or a friend since it's hard to imagine anyone else having the slightest interest in this unexceptional film critic's favorite movies.

Is he critic Andrew Sarris, who brought the auteur theory to America? Is he one of the Cahiers du Cinéma critics who established that concept in Europe? Is he Pauline Kael or Penelope Gilliatt, who influenced a generation of film critics? No: He's one more ordinary critic among hundreds of others, and we don't even include the "favorite films" of Sarris, Kael, etc., so it is completely unjustifiable that than anon IP — who may well be the subject himself — try to elevate this critic as more important than those legendary names. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That list of favorite films was added here by anon IP 72.244.204.222 — quite similar to the above 72.244.204.167 — who also in that edit added a large amount of promotional-seeming content and such fannish trivia as "Kermode rarely watches television." I am saying to this anon IP right now: You do not have the right to use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle, or to turn this into your resume / fansite. There is clearly WP:COI going on. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to address the issue of whether the material should be added or removed rather than second guess people's motives. I'm not sure whether the list should remain or not, but if we can source the statement that "Kermode rarely watches television." I would suggest we add it back to the article as it may be of interest to readers and researchers. Kermode is an influential British film critic whose radio program has won a Sony Gold Award and has been described as an "uber-critic" by the Belfast Telegraph, while The Yorkshire Post have advanced an argument that his "status as a national treasure is all but assured". Kermode is the critic who interviewed Scott and elicited the director's thoughts on Deckard in Blade Runner outlined in Themes in Blade Runner#Deckard: human or replicant?, and according to the BBC is "the authority on The Exorcist". I think that puts him above the average film critic. Hiding T 10:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For context, the "fannish trivia" about television included the quote from Kermode that "an awareness of what's going on in television is probably helpful to an understanding of movies", which seems a little more relevant to his film-review work than is perhaps suggested. It was sourced to an Observer article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I have great respect for my old colleague Hiding, who was essentially my menor and role model when I first worked on Wikipedia. It's always good to see his signature and I wish he were on WIkipedia more often.

I think it's not unreasonable, though, to note that there's no way one can compare a Mark Kermode with a Sarris, a Kael, et al. As for being a big critic in England — well, please excuse my flippant ruffling of any Anglophile feathers but, big deal. Same thing with someone who may be a big critic in Austria, Australia, Brazil or Belize. Outside of some horror buffs, no one in America even knows his name, which suggests that atop all other considerations, his list of "favorite movies" is WP:UNDUE. I don't think we'd disagree that the tone of this article has been somewhat fawning, shall we say? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Giving Kermode more weight than Kael would certainly be WP:UNDUE in a general article about film criticism, but this is an article about Kermode - either it's appropriate to repeat a strongly-sourced list of favourite films in a critic bio, or it isn't. Articles about prominent figures tend to be larger than those about lesser people, but that's just down to availability of sources and the number of interested editors. If Kermode ends up with a more in-depth (but perfectly reasonably sourced) biography than Kael, that's just how it goes, it's not a WP:UNDUE mistake. --McGeddon (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, you'd be hard pressed to find an average Brit on the street who had heard of Kael or Sarris, et al. Hiding T 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can an article on a critic include a short list of films he considers to be notable?

His second favourite film is Local Hero (1983)

Kermode's Top Ten films<ref name="filmdirectory"/>

Rank	Film	Year	Director
1.	The Exorcist	1973	William Friedkin
2.	Brazil	1985	Terry Gilliam
3.	Citizen Kane	1941	Orson Welles
4.	The Devils	1971	Ken Russell
5.	Don't Look Now	1973	Nicolas Roeg
6.	Eyes Without a Face	1960	Georges Franju
7.	It's a Wonderful Life	1946	Frank Capra
8.	Love and Death	1975	Woody Allen
9.	Mary Poppins	1964	Robert Stevenson
10.	The Seventh Seal	1957	Ingmar Bergman

Since the previous attempt to address the topic strayed, I've started a new section. The question is this: are there grounds for removing a referenced list of movies from this article on a film critic when that list identifies the films he considers most notable? For convenience, I've included that list at right.

An editor, Tenebrae (talk · contribs), has joined me in a minor reversion war over this question. The list was collateral damage accompanying a series of changes Tenebrae made recently, the majority of which I would consider to be clear improvements.

The case for continuing to include the list is simple: bios on WP sometimes contain structured lists, when the purpose (WP:LISTPURP) is relevant to the person, as it is, for example, with musicians and their recordings, with novelists and their books. Film critics become notable because of their film criticisms, which routinely get summarized into lists by everyone from Ain't It Cool News to Sight & Sound. If such a list of films is available for a critic, it can be noteworthy and reasonable to include it. 72.244.206.168 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I firmly believe that, given the extensive fawning, fannish edits that a close variant of this IP made to the article at the same time he added this list (here) that's it's fair to ask what connection is anon IP has with the subject or if it's the subject himself. Otherwise, why is he so adamant on creating a promotional hagiography? Why would any objective, disinterested editor care? I think fellow editors of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia have a right to know. Going through his and the similar anon IP's] contributions, I'm not seeing any other film critic, film historian or film writer. Why the intense interest in promoting this one? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That diff is less dramatic than it might look at first glance, as a lot of it is simply shuffling paragraphs around - I can't see anything problematic in there, it's not as if the user is promoting any of Mark's projects or removing negative material. As is suggested from your word "fannish", I assume the user is simply an enthusiastic fan who perhaps doesn't have an ear for WP:TONE yet. (We don't all have to be cinema experts to improve the article; I'm also a Kermode fan and I have also never edited another film critic's Wikipedia page.)

Although it's not entirely clear that a single user has been responsible for this tone. Checking the article history, Kermode's opinions on particular films have been stated in some form or another since 2005 (and in fact the very first edit in February 2005 lists his favourite film as The Exorcist!) - it's had poor tone throughout, but it's not the work of a single editor. I'm just seeing a fan who decided to restore some deleted material about Kermode's reviews, and who wants to discuss including a top ten. Edit warring over the latter is a mistake, but let's assume good faith and try talking about it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You make good points, though I'd like to note an addition by that IP from that linked diff: "In 2008, Kermode came tenth in an unauthoritative list of the ten best film critics compiled by the now defunct online site The Screen Directory. Included among the list were Alexander Walker, Pauline Kael, and James Agee." In an effort at compromise I hadn't raised an objection, but honestly: a non-authoritative list from a defunct site whose notability we don't know? And why the name-dropping of Walker, Kael and Agee? And then saying "Kermode is a patron of the Phoenix Cinema in North London" — I'm really not sure how it's encyclopedic to know where he likes to go to the movies. That sort of thing, and a list of his favorite films &mash; these things read less like an encyclopedia than a Tiger Beat article. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The diff you linked added neither of those statements, but merely moved them - they were both present in the previous version. And the word "patron" may just mean "customer" in your part of the world, but this context intends it in the sense of patronage. Assume some good faith here - an editor being flippantly dismissive about a film critic they don't care for can do just as much damage to an article as a fan being overenthusiastic. --McGeddon (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not actually accurate when you say I "don't care for" Kermode. I have no opinion on him one way or the other. I'm objective and disinterested. With all due respect, fans, by definition, aren't going to be as objective and disinterested. I have no bias pro or con Kermode, though others commenting here have a bias pro. I think, in fairness, that needs to be acknowledged.

The Screen Directory material was extant and moved, true, but it was also added to.

If "patron" and "patronage" in this context mean something different in American English than British English, then the term is vague and needs to be clarified. It sounds as if he has a membership to the theater, as one may have membership to Film Forum in New York, or the Lincoln Center theater. And that then becomes a matter of notability: He's a member of his local art-house theater. Honestly: So what? Is he a member of Costco? Of The British Museum? Certainly his membership is the London FIlm Critics Circle, or whatever it may be called, would be notable. But his local art-house theater? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything very clear about the role of a patron in this context, but a click to the Phoenix Cinema article suggests that there are only seven such patrons, including Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, so it is not simply that he is a £25-a-year "member". --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have top ten lists in any other similar articles? How reliable can we source it? I'd suggest we date it to the date of the source via as of if we do include it. Kermode is, as I've stated above, considered the authority on The Exorcist so it would be remiss not to mention that at least in the article. Hiding T 15:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As always, Hiding makes a good and temperate suggestion. I havent seen such lists at the Sarris, Kael and Gilliatt articles, but I could look at Rex Reed's, Roger Ebert's and Vincent Canby's, say. (I don't think anyone's objected to The Exorcist material — hey, maybe there's common ground!) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The source given seems to be an unattributed, undated lift of a 2002 Sight & Sound list. There was a more up-to-date Kermode top ten in this month's edition of the same magazine, listed in alphabetical order, available here.

Looking at comparative articles, Roger Ebert's lists a top ten from the self-same 2002 Sight & Sound poll, as well as a bulleted list of all 45 of his "films of the year". So I don't see a problem with including a similar list in this article, although I don't think it gains much by being in a floating, sortable table of years and directors - given that the films are all reasonably well known, a simple prose list of titles would suffice. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As always. Tenebrae is unable to assume WP:GOODFAITH of an IP editor. For the record, my only connection to Kermode is to listen to his weekly BBC podcast. As a response to what I agree is Hiding's good and temperate suggestion, I've updated the table to make use of a 2012 Sight & Sound reference. 72.244.200.185 (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC) (sharing a range of Dynamic IP addresses with a cabal of other fanboys)

Note that the Sight & Sound list is alphabetical, rather than from best downwards. I'm sure we can pull out a separate source for The Exorcist being his favourite, though, and put all this in a single paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that, and dropped the rank column for that very reason. 72.244.200.185 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you did. I think it'd be better as a straight sentence in a relevant paragraph of the article, though - a careless reader seeing a table like that will assume that the top item in the list is Mark Kermode's top film. What do you think? --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if we use one at Roger Ebert I see no reason not to here. I tend to agree with McGeddon that the floated table doesn't sit well in the article and would too prefer a prose list. As to The Exorcist, the BBC describe him as "the authority on The Exorcist" here, in a Scotsman interview he is reported to insist "that The Exorcist is the greatest movie ever made", and in The Times of July 19 2008, "Radio Head: a salute to Mark Kermode" they state " His favourite film is The Exorcist". Hope that helps somewhat. Hiding T 09:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. The most thorough approach would be to quote Kermode about all 10 of the films he recommends most, with particular emphasis on The Exorcist since he certainly holds that film in high esteem. To do so would provide insight in the criteria Kermode considers when critiquing a film. The table was simpler to contribute, and has a certain advantage in that its compact form is something that readers can click through easily. IMHO, film names, years, and directors provide context into what a critic considers to be a good film. 72.244.200.185 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A quote from Kermode for every one of his 10 favorite films? Seriously? How fannish (or self-promoting) can one get? A prose list like the one at Roger Ebert seems a fair compromise.

Now that we've reached a middle ground there, what about the defunct Screen Directory site of questionable notability, and his being a patron of a local theater? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Ebert article certainly includes a few direct quotes, although they seem chosen to illustrate various opinions or aspects of his reviewing style. It'd be fine to include that many quotes in the Kermode article, but I think it'd be more constructive to pick quotes about whichever films best illustrate the aspects of his criticism that need illustrating, rather than dragging out one quote per film on his top ten. (If nothing else, there's bound to be some mileage in reviews of the films he didn't like.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• With the patronage of the cinema, he went as far as having his and Mayo's tenth anniversary radio show broadcast live from the venue. That would go beyond simply being a customer, wouldn't it? [2]. The cinema itself is also the oldest purpose built cinema in the country and Kermode's handprints are found in the cement outside the building, although I've lost that link. He describes it as his favourite cinema; I think it's worth mentioning; the Hampstead and Highgate Express state he is a patron of the cinema's charitable trust, [3]. The Freddie Starr and Gary Lineker articles make note of their celebrity patronage while the Michael Jackson article makes mention of the Pepsi commercial. Hope that helps, Hiding T 16:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Hiding, for your extra efforts. That makes things much clearer. How about this: Expanding the existing sentence and exchanging the unclear term "patron" to say something like "is on the board of the charitable trust of the historic Phoenix Cinema, from where he and Mayo did their 10th-anniversary radio broadcast; he had his handprints in cement outside the building." These are concrete things (so to speak) and make it clear.

If that expansion seems fair, could we then exclude the "unauthoritative" list of a defunct and so at this point non-notable website? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Screen Directory top ten

[Breaking out a new section header.] Per the concerns above, I agree that I don't see how the Screen Directory source is worth mentioning as "an unauthoritative list of the ten best film critics" - it's anonymous, it has no introductory text, and the title is just "Film Critics". It mentions "5 That Just Missed The Cut" underneath, suggesting that the list was selected, but with no author or explanation it seems meaningless. (The lists themselves seem to be an unattributed crib of the 2002 Sight & Sound polls, which make it seem a bit too much like an industry directory website trying to draw some traffic by having a lazy staff blog.) Is there some context missing here? Is it actually a terrible web version of a respected print magazine? --McGeddon (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• No idea on this one. Can't turn up much in the Internet Archive. Hiding T 13:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you both taking time to examine this. As I just mentioned on McG's talk page, I know that while you're both fans of the subject you're also knowledgable and experienced editors, not to mention polite and collegial, and even though I had sort of given up on this article's tone, I see the discussion in this section and it honestly gives me optimism and makes me feel like an awful cynic.

You guys represent some of the best of Wikipedia. As I did years ago and I continue to do now, I'm still learning from Hiding. I think I've learned a lot, but I can see I have a ways to go. With thanks and respect, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Blurby, self-congratulatory tone

I've made some cuts and given some of the language a more neutral tone, but this is one of the most self-promotional, self-congratulatory articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Parts of it were written like a fan site, not an encyclopedia article, and I wouldn't be surprised if the article subject himself had written great portions of it. It was shameful and it was disrespectful of the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not someone's fan page. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It does seem quite lengthy and over-detailed for a fairly minor subject (horror film reviewer).... Twizzlemas (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Kermode is a bit more than a horror film reviewer, he's a television presenter and radio broadcaster. Hiding T 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

...but not much more. Twizzlemas (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He's one of the most prominent cultural commentators in the uk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.34.122 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Kermode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071213135538/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/radio1/maryannehobbs.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/radio1/maryannehobbs.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/mark-kermode-on-censorship-what-are-they-scared-of-645952.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Frank Kermode

I think it's ridiculous to put that he is not related to Frank Kermode - Frank Kermode was from the Isle of Man and Mark Kermode has 'Manx' ancestry. As the American's say 'you do the math' I think it's pretty clear that they must be at least distantly related... 86.15.33.216 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• He has explicitly stated that he isn't related to Frank Kermode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.197.71 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Kermode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120128055009/http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20090612-1642b.mp3 to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20090612-1642b.mp3
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205142958/http://www.reel.com:80/movie.asp?MID=2337&PID=10117483&buy=closed&Tab=reviews&CID=18 to http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=2337&PID=10117483&buy=closed&Tab=reviews&CID=18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mark Kermode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101026123331/http://www.thebookseller.com:80/news/76846-kermode-to-random-house.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/76846-kermode-to-random-house.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925093035/https://www.gov.im/categories/leisure-and-entertainment/arts-council/news/?altTemplate=ViewCategorisedNews&id=20352 to https://www.gov.im/categories/leisure-and-entertainment/arts-council/news/?altTemplate=ViewCategorisedNews&id=20352
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130726194500/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er6HthvT5UY to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er6HthvT5UY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Kermode. 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/20090515100223/http://www.radioawards.org:80/winners/?awid=159&awname=The+Speech+Award&year=2009 to http://www.radioawards.org/winners/?awid=159&awname=The+Speech+Award&year=2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026123331/http://www.thebookseller.com:80/news/76846-kermode-to-random-house.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/76846-kermode-to-random-house.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515100223/http://www.radioawards.org:80/winners/?awid=159&awname=The+Speech+Award&year=2009 to http://www.radioawards.org/winners/?awid=159&awname=The+Speech+Award&year=2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)