Talk:Plot coupon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removed this:

The Gadgets Q issues to James Bond, every single one of which will be used at least once in the movie, definitely fall into this category.

The gadgets are in fact one of the main points of the movie. Bond will use all of them because there is no point in inventing a nifty gadget and then not letting the audience enjoy its use.

Of course there's a point: See Red herring and Cliffhanger. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voucher NPOV

I find it hard to believe that someone thinks that using "a pretty darn egregious one at that" and similar editorial comments is conforming to the NPOV. ➥the Epopt 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not professional-sounding, but it has little to do with NPOV, unless you think "many would consider this to be an obvious example of a plot voucher" is inherently less of an opinion. The "N" does not stand for "neutered".

I for myself continue to be puzzled at people slapping tags on articles for things they can easily fix themselves. I do hope you do more than observe, as your handle suggests...

I rewrote the section to make it less... colorful, which included cutting the apparently offending example as superfluous. I encourage you to edit it yourself if more is necessary. Words speak louder than talk, after all. 82.92.119.11 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] um...

this is basically an essay that is a summary of another essay. interesting? yes. belonging on WP? No. Blueaster 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely yes. It's providing information about a term, which is the purpose of an encyclopaedia entry, and it does so by reference to an essay because that's how the term was introduced. I came across the term in another article and wanted to find out more about it. That's exactly what Wikipedia is good for. 84.70.226.68 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)