This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This movie is a "not to be seen" one, a total waste of time.(from Sami,may 20. 2006)
I added a cleanup tag to the plots summary section. It needs to be rewritten and currently reads like someone's middle school book report. Gront 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you add some more info? I've watched half of the movie and didn't see the 1871 boat murder in the beginning. Edward Roussac (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section of this article analyzing the differences with the remake and the original. Bronks 15 Jan 2006
I removed "one of my personal favorites" from Selma Blair's name, because it's completely irrelevent. Also removed the two conflicting "trivia" notes regarding who was slated to play Stevie Wayne - they directly contradict one another.
The mistakes section seems to be a copy fo the copyrighted site http://www.moviemistakes.com/film5310, so I remvoed the section and added an external link to it. RJFJR 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I was told some people call this movie the "TV killer" because most LCD TVs cannot display the fog scenes very well. Is it true? I've never seen this movie. -- Toytoy 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Before DeRay Davis auditioned and blew producers away." Did Davis write this himself? This is extremely POV, even more so than the Selma Blair line and should be deleted or have a citation added.==Hypermagic 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:The Fog 2005 film.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Whenever some tries to contribute to this page it is undone and replaced with a load of condensed crap that is apparently within some guideline some idiot in an office with no life has made up. I am sick of it you should be able to put whatever you want within reason of course nothing rude obviously but if it helps with the plot then why shouldn't it be allowed to be used. This 700 word non sense is the biggest load of garabage I have ever heard what happens when the article is very long and needs to be over 700 words? The Fog and Gone with the Wind are very different length plots but are they both going to be 700 words if that's the maximum liit and the Fog is already 700? It's about time somebody stands up to these idiotic rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The Fog Edits
Do you really mean that? Last time, you said that "trying to cause trouble" and would "settle it reasonably," yet you've launch a personal attack towards us. You've better honor what you've said, otherwise you would still be in danger of being blocked. Once your account is blocked, you've won't be able to log back in.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose to delete this argument please say if you have any objections within the next 24 hours otherwise will be assumed not. Please also note this is only applicable to those involved in the disscussion not outsiders, if outsiders do decide to comment they will either be ignored or their comments deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no reason for the plot summary to be changed from its 700 word version, and relevant plot details (such as Elizabeth being warned that if she touches the watch things will change, and identifying Connie as Andy's aunt) should not have been deleted just so that a totally irrelevant sentence about where the guys and girls were standing on the fishing boat when they were killed could be added (again). That kind of detail is excessive and not relevant to the plot. Looking at the history, it seems this article is being plagued by one troublesome editor and a couple of new single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Stiarts erid, if you continue this kind of disruptive behaviour after the various warnings you have been given, then your account will be blocked. You have been told to gain a consensus before making changes to the plot summary yet have disregarded this and continued with your behaviour. And deleting conversations on this or any other talk page will not hide the evidence. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you really think it is wise to start all this up again? Clearly you did not get your facts right, I am very angry about this article and page every time I have tried to make a contribution it is reverted to what a group of bullies think is better. Are you one of them? I am willing to discuss it normally and reach a comprimise but when I am told again and again no because of some stupid made up rule I get very, very angry. I WILL BE LISTENED TO IS THAT CLEAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have given the chance for these fellow editors to talk resonably to reach a mutal decision about the plot but have proven they are too childish to do so. I am being bullied into accepting what they think is best with out being given a chance, they then wonder why I get annoyed with them when they won't let me put my point across or even listen to what I have to say. But apparently that is fair to bully someone into doing what you want and not give the other person a chance. I only reacted aggressively because they wouldn't listen to what I had to say or even try and reach a mutal decision, just bare that in mind when your editing it seems it has to be decided by a group of bully editors if it's allowed or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I will continue fighting until I am listened to and able to have my say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Go away and leave me alone then and you won't recieve any will you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Get over it, move on and let it go it's not difficult. Once you've done that leave me alone and don't talk to me again please. I called your sock puppet friend a littke Hitler not a Nazi and that wasn't even aimed at you so don't know why you're in such a state about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking to one person unless you are also all the other sock puppet accounts too? Apart from this you don't seem to have grasped leaving me alone, and this is a funny way of ignoring someone. This isn't primary school, deal with being called a name and I will stop calling you a name when you stop winding me up ie leaving me alone never to come back (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
God!!!!!!!!!!!! First we have an edit war, now we have insults. ADMINISTORS, PLEASE DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE HAD IT WITH HIS ABUSES. IF HE CANNOT BE CIVIL, THEN THERE IS NO POINT FOR ME TO BE ON WIKIPEDIA IF I WOULD RECEIVE INSULTS!!!!!!!!!!!! The plot summary is already fine, yet he try to make a big deal by adding irrelevant plot points, and even added irrelevant names on the characters. I do not know what to do, if you can't block him, then I am gone.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Bye then. (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
right it seems the bully editors are being arrogant and biggoted and are insisting on having their own way again. Well I have just one thing to say to all those people who got in my way, and I don't care if I get blocked for this. FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I see no discussion over content only arguing with other editors about their behavior. Coming to a consensus means bringing up the changes to the article you'd like to see and talking about the benefits and disadvantages of the changes. The discussion has to be about The Fog, not other editors.
So, how can the article be improved? Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I recall reading reviews criticizing the decision to take an R-rated horror film and remake it as a PG-13 film. That probably should be mentioned in the article as one reason some critics felt it failed (if indeed that view can be sourced). --67.101.223.176 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fog (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)