Talk:See No Evil (2006 film)

Change to page

According to the 4/10 Raw Show it was said in a promo that the kids are on work release from jail and not community service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.105.179 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 April 2006

I'd say the movie will turn a decent profit but don't expect record setting box office numbers or anything. For one thing, it's only going to be released in less than 1,300 theaters nationwide and it's going up against The Da Vinci Code this weekend and X-Men: The Last Stand next weekend. Due to the WWE fanbase and hardcore horror fans, I'd say the movie will do 8 to 10 million dollars worth of business this weekend, which is about equal to the production budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.162.182.61 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 20 May 2006

- 8 to 10 million? In what universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.72.19 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 May 2006

"after two weeks, the movie stood at over $9.8 million, thus turning over a 2 million dollar profit"

That should be removed. A movie making just above it's production budget is not considered profitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.237.246 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 June 2006

Rammstein

wat for a number has de rammsteinsong mein teil in the soundtrack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.125.149 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 October 2006

UK

Does nayone know if see no evil is coming to the uk on dvd? Black6989 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Black6989

Fair use rationale for Image:See no evil.jpg

Image:See no evil.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Just glancing over the trivia section. Was wondering if this was vandalism or not:

At the end of the movie after about 30 seconds into the credits a scene showing Jacob dead and with a hole where his eye was a dog comes over and pees in his eye socket. During the commentary on the DVD Kane said, (jokingly) that when he finds this dog he's going to do something bad to it.

If it isn't, however, I have to say that it's wording is ridiculous and needs to be fixed. Otherwise I'm going to remove it. 67.142.130.44 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

plot

What kind of plot is that, there is heaps more in the movie then that. Ill be happy to change it to a REAL plot if someone gives me the ok. --Metal to the Max! 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But ofcourse nobody says a thing, why because nobody cares on wikipedia, its all about editing, but ur lucky if an edit lasts a week before its changed or deleted.---The Great One 11

49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do it. The plot section here is out of control and probably too long. Tripnoted (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

---

See No Evil (film) → See No Evil (2006 film) – This film was mentioned to me in another discussion, so I learned there is the 1971 film of the same name. I learned that disambiguating films of a similar name and precision could overcome criteria of primary topics of a similar name, especially when "(film)" is used for one of films of a similar name. That's what happened to Psycho (1960 film) and Independence Day (1996 film). George Ho (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the guidelines to disambiguate films with the same title from each other. Why did a move need to be requested, though? This seems uncontroversial. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support This seems perfectly reasonable. Neither film is particularly prominent, so neither really should own the undated title. But both should get hatnote dabs. I agree with Erik, this seems quite uncontroversial. Rwessel (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't seem to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by anyone's definition. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support if anything the Mia Farrow film would be the more important, but neither meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support WP:NCF ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per reasone above --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support; I don't think either has a particularly strong claim to PRIMARYTOPIC, and I'm not aware of any alternative names that we could use for natural disambiguation. bobrayner (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2013 (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.