Talk:The Client (novel)

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film

This 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal The Client (novel) is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

If the neutrality of this article is disputed, how come this talk page does not list the objections? RedWolf 06:12, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Negative influences of television on children?[edit]

How exactly is this reflected in the movie? The kid acts like a VCR, and basically lives his live as seen on TV, but I still think stating something like "the movie reflects negative influences of TV on children" in the opening paragraph is way too POV. 213.172.234.112 22:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. He's threatened by the mob (in the elevator) like he'd seen in movies. He reflects often to movies, but it also happens in the story. Quote: "The mob never forgets", he heard it from TV, but it has also happened to him. I remove the phrase. Kassie 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article splitting[edit]

It says that it's suggested the article gets split into separate entries but I don't think there's really enough information FOR two articles. --User.lain 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. AirOdyssey 20:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Removing tag after three months. Original nominator did not provide any explanation, and it does not have enough info for two (or three, as there's a book, a movie and a series) articles. BalthCat 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie or book?[edit]

Is this about the movie or about the book? The stories differs somewhat. The article starts about the novel, but there's also a movie box on the right side. Which is a bit confusing. Though, the article could refer to both. Kassie 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline[edit]

Is it really necessary, it just takes up some space that isn't needed. It could be added to a different section of the article...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.64.146 (talk • contribs) 23:24, May 21, 2007‎ (UTC)

Fix'd, it wast not needed anyway. Marlith ^T/C 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shock" link[edit]

I changed the shock link from "shock (medical)" to "shock (psychological"; the original link led to a disambiguation page, but there's nothing ambiguous about what kind of shock a child would go into after seeing someone stick a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger. Misterdoe (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky's condition is best described as "catatonic", without having to go into extensive medical detail. — Quicksilver^{T @} 07:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film adaptation information[edit]

I think the film is mentioned too much in the article. for example, Susan Sarandon is mentioned 3 times. The film has its own article and should not be in focus here. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]