| Revision as of 10:52, 9 January 2005 editCunningLinguist (talk | contribs)743 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:40, 9 January 2005 edit undoOmegatron (talk | contribs)Administrators35,798 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *Why? Yes it's longer than most other movie articles, but why does that bother you? It is very well-written and I find that its length detracts nothing from the article and in fact adds to it. I think its fine the length it is. -] 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) | *Why? Yes it's longer than most other movie articles, but why does that bother you? It is very well-written and I find that its length detracts nothing from the article and in fact adds to it. I think its fine the length it is. -] 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Nothing wrong with long articles - ] 18:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 18:40, 9 January 2005
And then what happens? Is there supposed to be more after the text cuts off? - Puffy jacket 18:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Watch the film! That is supposed to be more, it's just not finished yet. Add a note explaining that if you think it's warranted! --Sam
This is ridiculous. I bet this plot synopsis is longer than the treatment. One short paragraph is enough for just about any film. Can someone trim this? -R. fiend 03:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why? Yes it's longer than most other movie articles, but why does that bother you? It is very well-written and I find that its length detracts nothing from the article and in fact adds to it. I think its fine the length it is. -CunningLinguist 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with long articles - Omegatron 18:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
The window of opportunuity for filming just after dawn was small? It was reported that the normal activity had been removed by computers.
- Perhaps some was (though I'd not heard that) but it was definately filmed after dawn and before London got massively busy. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)