Talk:Basic Instinct 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

A plot summary needs to be added to this film article, or the current one needs to be expanded.

Contents 1 Release 2006? 2 Movie review 3 André Schneider deleted 4 Reaction part deleted 5 "promo reel" scenes - threesome, etc.

[edit] Release 2006?

Ehm... Should we describe films before they are released? AN 11:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Dismas 09:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if it is proven to exist, then pre-emptive strikes to inclusions for informational preservation should definitely be made. 4.224.249.96 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a good innovation!!

The film was shot in London from April to August 2005. After being in development hell for a number of years, the film was released on March 31, 2006. The film was not as well received as its predecessor and fell short of commercial expectations. - That "number of years" I suppose is < 1, according to statement ;) --78.61.94.98 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie review

BEST. WIKIPEDIA PAGE. EVER. 24.242.215.209 19:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I just have to say this movie has recieved the most unfair reviews. I watched this movie and enjoyed it very much. Everyone I know that has seen it, enjoyed it.

The critics were lashing out at this film before it was even released. And the reviews are hatefull, that it makes me wonder if there is some other motive behind it. Reading the AOL reviews, it made me wonder if people were making false email addresses just so they post negative reviews.

If the reviews were truly critical they would be neutral in tone. Is this a back lash because Sharon Stone sued and stood here ground?

If this makes anybody feel better, down here in Ecuador BI2 was one of the most popular movies this season (at least in my region), staying on the theaters far more than most movies. I mean it was released on June 23 and it's still on here. Even when the first critics trashed it too. I have to agree, I also enjoyed this movie, and everybody I've talked to that has watched it from here does so too. Gotta love Tramell! --User:Revoish 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I was really surprised when I saw that rotten tomatoes had it ranked as "worst movie of 2006", because I found it rather good - and at any rate more enjoyable than its predecessor. 88.174.252.54 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] André Schneider deleted

i have to delete his entry because i don't see his name in imdb for this movie. HoneyBee 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction part deleted

Look I can understand if the statements I added were too POV and subsequently deleted but they are fact. It has been both an critical (Rotten Tomatoes 6%) and commerical failure ($5 million). The reason I also think it should be mentioned in the start as the beginning of most film pages in Wikipedia will give a short plot outline, reaction to film and certain mentions of things that are noteworthy of it. The critical and commerical aspects are quite noteworthy and in no way POV. Lummie 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The TOC is right below the lead, with links to both critial and commercial reactions. Saying it is a critical failure is POV, same with commercial, reading the FACTS in the reception section (ie; gross, RT rating) a reader can decide whether it is a commercial and/or critical failure based on their own judgement. Cvene64 07:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is notable, so I reworded it and put it in the lead. Hope that is ok.Cvene64 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Have to admit it looks better. Thanks Cvene64! Lummie 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "promo reel" scenes - threesome, etc.

Were these scenes included in "uncut" versions of the movie released outside of the USA, or were they only ever on the promo reel? This is unclear from the text. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)