Talk:Never Cry Wolf (film)

Rotten Tomatoes

I think the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes was a SUPER edit by VanillaCake. After all the reviews in RT are generally from accepted critics of films. An epinions link, I can understand. I'm including the same kind of remarks in many of the films I edit. Thanks. Luigibob 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes not on the DVD Anywhere?

Can anyone confirm that there were scenes removed from Never Cry Wolf when it was released on VHS/DVD versus it's original airing on the Disney Channel? My parents were just watching it and she swears that the ending is different and at least one other scene has been altered as well. She hasn't read the book yet, and has only seen bits of Dances With Wolves but she swears up and down about an ending involving someone shooting at a pack of wolves from a helicoptor. Renserin 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This film is based on novel by a man who is not a biologist and did not do any research

The criticism of Mowat by actual wolf researchers is pretty cogent and he has never been able to refute any of it. I am about as "pro-wolf" as anyone but the idea, mentioned early in the film and the novel, that no one had ever seen wolves kill a caribou is nonsense. 71.234.37.144 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven71.234.37.144 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All movie

I have removed the review from Allmovie.com that was in the critical response section.

Brendon Hanley of Allmovie also liked the film, especially Smith's performance, and wrote, "Wolf's protagonist, wonderfully played by the reliable character actor Charles Martin Smith...The result is a quirky, deceptively simple meditation on life."

I tagged the review as {{Dated info}} because the link no longer pointed at the review the article was discussing.
User:Luigibob attempted to "fix" the reference by changing it to the newer different link to a review by an entirely different author. This is worse that no fix at all, at least with a {{Dead link}} editors might believe the information was sourced before, but to change the citation to reference an entirely different review is just confusing. Since the most likely result is that an editor would see that the information was not in source and delete it anyway, I feel I have no choice but to delete it to avoid further confusion. -- Horkana (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, dare I ask, what is wrong with this link? Hanley, Bradon at All Movie. Am I missing something here? The quote is there: "Wolf's protagonist, wonderfully played by the reliable character actor Charles Martin Smith...The result is a quirky, deceptively simple meditation on life." I suggest it be read. I will be reverting this ASAP since I have obvious proof. Rats. Luigibob (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The link was dead and redirected to a film profile page with a plot synopsis written by "Eleanor Mannikka" which was not the same as the review being quoted.

The link you later posted does go to the actual review page (confusingly an extra tab click away, a different page) not the overview page previously linked to. The link is now actually okay but it was linked to the wrong page before. -- Horkana (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting.

If you insist on writing out the words and want to follow the actual American date style January 1, 2011 then go ahead I won't waste my time arguing with a date format many other editors use but 01-01-2011 is not at all helpful and so far away from consensus I encourage you to get a an admin to get a third opinion. You'll either be told to go back to the predominant date style, or to write out the dates in words which is only as much as I'm insisting. -- Horkana (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:DATE. Please note that the date format I used and widely used in Wikipedia is ISO 8601 i.e. 2011-01-31 YYYY-MM-DD although many editors prefer to write out the date using full words. The guidelines recommended against using them in prose, and many editors prefer not to use them in citations either but the citations guidelines urge editors to keep with the established style of the article.

As I said above if you want to change the dates to "January 31, 2011" then you may do so but the DD-MM--YYYY format you have been using is not acceptable. -- Horkana (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Disney Links

Just because the film and the poster said "Walt Disney Pictures", doesn't mean we have to still say Walt Disney Productions. This was during the time when Disney started to have the credits and the promotion to their films to say Walt Disney Pictures Presents. Only the copyright says Walt Disney Productions, but it still says Walt Disney Pictures in the credits. This edit war needs to be stopped as these Disney Links problems have been a waste of our time. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken page

loads of script errors in the article, can somebody with knowledge about this stuff fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.109.136.251 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)