Talk:The Cell

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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 Related task forces (nations and regions): Indian cinema task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

---

I edited the box office numbers. I do not know the overseas gross, but I do know the US gross, and it surely wasn't $111,543. It was $61,280,963, and your source is here. --Hellogoodsir 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

controversy |ˌkɒntrəvəːsi| |kənˌtrɒvəsi| noun ( pl. -sies) disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated

One review, one reviewer, uncontested.

Not controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.46.253 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.46.253 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Medved isn't the only critic to complain about J-Lo smoking a joint in the film. I remember a newspaper story in which the film was lambasted for showing a character who works with children smoking pot, and there was at least one other critic who I recall was rather vocal. I want to say Roger Ebert but I can't be certain. The Medved column I cited is the only professional critic's comments I could find currently online. If anyone can find other links -- including rebuttals to Medved's POV -- please feel free to add them. I have my own POV on this, but I only added it because it received media attention, which satisfies Wiki's notability requirements. 23skidoo 07:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section because only one source has been provided, and that hardly constitutes the fact that it is controversial, or even deserving of its own section. Besides the guy also goes on a rant about the baptism in the movie, he's just ranting for the hell of it. Something controversial receives mass attention, and this did not. --Speakslowly 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. I remember this fact throwing me off as a teenager. But now that I'm older... well, I re-watched the film with my boyfriend tonight and remarked to him that it was sort of a relief to see her doing so. It sort of set her apart from your typical, pretty, good-hearted heroine. She's still giving and good hearted, but she isn't perfect. I like that about her. She's sort of fearless. I can't imagine the uproar the scene caused... must've been quite rowdy. Regardless, I wouldn't change that part of the film for anything. I liked that it literally had nothing to do with the rest of the story and really didn't equate her to a flaming junkie, it was just a little realistic quirk. --68.92.52.3 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember watching this movie and being pretty indifferent about her sparking up a joint. You have to remember that she is playing a character who "dives" into people minds and has to deal with the disturbing imagery within these minds. When i saw here light up a joint i just though, "Well duh, anyone who does here job would probably need a little ganja at the end of the day to relax and stay sane." I don't think there was much of a controversy here. I saw the film in a packed theater and nobody gasped at this scene. There were a few chuckles, but that's it. Elhector 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. People are still talking about it. I put it back, since Medved is a notable critic. My edit uses the term "and others" and when I have a moment I'll do some extra research to find the "and others". To dismiss the section based upon anecdotal evidence (i.e. the reaction of an audience) goes against WP:NOR, whereas Medved's criticism was published widely (though the source I cite here is at present one of the only accessible online-archived sources). It doesn't matter if you feel the scene was harmless. The fact is a published critic (and others - again I'll add names when I have a moment) said otherwise. 68.146.41.232 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that this should get an entry, especially given the nature of the film, regardless of whether or not a film critic pointed it out (which doesn't constitute controversy). The film was rated R, and the person shown partaking of the joint was an adult (a responsible, accomplished professional adult, at that). Legal or not, many adults in such roles do smoke marijuana from time to time, and its portrayal in the movie was a refreshing dose of realism. Medved himself does not have an NPOV, so why should his comments warrant "controversy," especially in an internet era when it's quite easy to cherry-pick individual instances of commentary without looking at the larger picture- specifically, the lack of any mass public debate about this one scene. It seems to me to be more a case of some negative critical reception at best than controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.124.250 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the least bit notable, except maybe for fretful but clueless parents, or alarmists with a censorship agenda. And Ebert appears to not have cared about it, FYI: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000818/REVIEWS/8180303/1023. He gave the movie four stars and doesn't mention the joint to my knowledge. That also just doesn't sound like him, I don't think he would waste time on something so trivial.VatoFirme (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Dog

Does anyone know who the acting dog in this movie was? Or what species it was? It was a beautiful white dog, with blue eyes, a pink nose and pink ears. When I first saw it I thought maybe a white german shepard, akita or if they can come in all white a husky or maybe a wolf. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)