Talk:Face/Off

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Face/Off was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: June 9, 2007

	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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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

Contents 1 Forward slash 2 Neutrality 3 Castor/Troy 4 Biased Review Masquerading as Disinterested Article 5 Censorship 6 Breaking up Plot 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Face-Off (Movie Poster).jpg 8 GA on hold 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Off Soundtrack Cover.jpg 10 Goofs

[edit] Forward slash

"The first challenge one confronts with Face/Off is the curious, I might even say misplaced, 'forward slash' in its title. Are 'Face' and 'Off' separate talents that the title has on its résumé? Is there a choice between 'face' and 'off' that we, or one of the movie's characters, are asked to make? Perhaps 'Off' is a computer file extension of the program 'Face.' The slash is even more confounding given the dizzying array of character and punctuation marks one has to choose from. Was Face%Off considered and rejected and, if so, why? How did the slash win out over the altogether more approachable * character, or even the ^? I find it most likely that the slash was a later accretion by an ambitious promotions person trying to make a name for herself. 'I'm the one who put the slash in Face/Off!' one can almost hear her bragging, completely oblivous to the soupy haze of confusion she created."

—Michael J. Nelson, Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese, pp. 45-46

Actually it is very simple, Woo put the slash in the title after others said that the movie may get confused for a hockey movie. "Dylan Porter"

Faces got slashed off, so it's a Face Slash-off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The line "possibly the best chase scene ever filmed" strikes me as this authors opinion. If it's not simply a case of someone praising something he or she likes, can we see a source here, please? --Ryl 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryl, but not with Michael J. Nelson as the / is clearly present in the movie poster on the article. That one line has caused someone to put a NPOV dispute sign over an otherwise pretty good article. Dessydes 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and reworded. I've taken off the NPOV template, but I haven't gone over the article with a fine-toothed comb. --Grocer 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castor/Troy

Throughout, Archer is referred to as Archer. Troy starts off being referred to as such, but then the article switches between Castor and Troy, in a slightly confusing way. Wouldn't it be better to refer to the character as Troy all the way through, like Archer? 212.108.17.165 14:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Castor Troy should probably be referred to as Castor through the entire article, as there are two "Troys" in the film. Referring to him only as Troy could cause confusion. Schoop 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Review Masquerading as Disinterested Article

Whoever wrote the original article removed a brief critical comment I added about a week ago. At first, I was astounded to find my comment deleted summarily; however, when I reread the original article, I realized that it is not really a disinterested, informative, professional article, but rather a puff piece masquerading as an article, possibly by someone connected with "Face/Off" and its continued financial success who saw my comment as a threat to that success. I note that a special DVD version of "Face/Off" is scheduled for release this year. While I understand that there's always a bit of an author's self-interest lurking in all articles, the article for this movie (I can't bring myself to call it a film) is steeped in unwarranted praise. Indeed, "Face/Off" has so much wrong with it from an artistic standpoint that my criticism was modest compared to what an intelligent, educated, experienced moviegoer could write.Cavan 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the comment was removed by 207.144.184.143, and I would feel he was probably right to do so. I'd check WP:NPOV. It's an opinion that the plot is silly, not a fact, and your paragraph was worded in such a way that it was clearly not neutral, but designed to criticise the film. Praising or criticising films is not what Wikipedia is for. If this is a commonly held opinion, you could word it along the lines of 'Despite its success, the film's plot has been criticised.' This would then require sourcing, preferrably with a link to a major review which mentions this. If you feel the article is unduly biased towards the film, it would be better to reword sections you feel are overly POV towards putting the film in a positive light into something more neutral. From a brief read, apart from the first couple of paragraphs, this article isn't too bad, though the first couple of lines could use work. Girdag 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

In the DVD releases, for some bizarre reason the bits with the switch blade are edited out. It is perplexing why you can show someone without a face, a serrated knife being jabbed into someones thigh, a child being shot, many men being shot and falling to their death, drug taking and an undercover FBI agent sucking on a drug dealers tongue, but, you can't show a switch knife!? Maybe this should be added here by someone else as I wont be able to do it from a non bias view. Maybe it isn't important... (thats what the FCC want you to think so they can continue their arbitrary and unwarranted censorship, I mean for christ sakes, its a DVD, if I buy it I want to watch it, what the hell are they doing disrupting the flow of the movie by arbitrarily taking parts out!?)

[edit] Breaking up Plot

Someone edit it into paragraphs. It's a solid block of text.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a complete rewrite. Noclip 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Face-Off (Movie Poster).jpg

Image:Face-Off (Movie Poster).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 Wikipedia articles 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 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I'm really in two minds about passing this one. Some small issues at first: the lead makes no mention about the plot, and I don't like cast names in the plot. The big issue here is the production section is tiny: I'll give you the benefit of a week to fatten it up. Alientraveller 09:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm failing this due to production section. IMDb trivia is an unreliable, user-submitted source. Try to find actual news articles from IMDb or Entertainment Weekly. Alientraveller 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Off Soundtrack Cover.jpg

Image:Off Soundtrack Cover.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 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.

[edit] Goofs

Can we get a cleanup on this? Do we really even need this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.50.187 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree. delete it all, i guess. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)