Talk:Ken Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconFilm: American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.


Even though these kids hang out together at the skateboard park, they never interact in their outside lives.

One teenage couple is discovered by the girl's father when having oral sex; then there's the threesome at the end. Aren't the participants in these scenes those same skateboard kids? They appear to me to be interacting quite heavily outside the skateboard park. AxelBoldt 22:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I found this comment inaccurate. They interact all the time if you ask me. Tomee 14:12, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
They "interacted" but they had no real idea what each others lives were like.
They talked about being friends, yet throughout most of the movie they do not interact with each other. Considering that Tate wasn't in the sex scene, he doesn't really interact with any of his "friends" in the movie at all.


Someone doesn't seem to know what the word "synopsis" means. Why are we providing a play by play of the entire movie?

Cos we can mate, cos we can. Actually, considering the film is banned in several countries, it may be worthwhile for readers from those countries to be able to know what happens in the film, and perhaps why it was banned.

That is not a synopsis. That is the entire movie, and as such is completely inappropriate. Should be removed.

I agree. It could be kept, but the article needs a true synopsis. (By the way, y'all need to sign and date your comments) ike9898 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film was banned in Australia and is yet to recieve a wide release outside of Europe. I think the plot summary is significant since the film is so controversial. It would be worthwhile for those who do not have access to the film to be able to know what happens in the film. And considering it includes pictures and detail, it would be such a waste to remove. Many other films have large Plot Summaries on Wikipedia. Lach Graham 08:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are going to delete the entire Plot Summary, I will revert it. There is way too much work and detail there to be simply deleted it. Many film articles have long summaries. Wikipedia is all about information, and that summary is one of the best available on the internet. If you think it is too long, then try re-formatting it. Don't bother to delete the entire summary, or I will revert it. Lach Graham 10:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is WAY too much information. We don't need a complete, detailed summary of the film, Wikipedia is here to provide general information about the subject, not describing the whole movie in detail. DJLarZ 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but it often describes the entire plot; see Ronin for an example. If you really think there is way to much information, then reduce it, but not without cutting out large parts of the plot. If you can abridge the plot summary, and perhaps remove some of the pictures if necessary, so be it. But until someone can come up with a shortened version which stills accurately describes the film, it should be kept. Lach Graham 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The plot description is absolutely too long. "Too much work" isn't a reason to ignore the WP:FILM plot guidelines. Additionally, you don't own the article; you should work on a shorter, more appropriate plot summary instead of a scene-by-scene retelling. fethers 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THE PLOT-DESCRIPTION, AS IT STANDS, IS A WORK OF PLAGIARISM. Viz., —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral meriweather (talkcontribs) 13:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]